IMPORTANT POINT
The executing court is bound to execute a decree as it stands, and objections to its execution must be based on jurisdictional issues rather than claims of error in the decree's interpretation.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The petitioners has filed the instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Execution Case No.14 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the Judgment Debtor (petitioners herein) was rejected wherein a plea was taken that against the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-, a cheque of Rs.4,81,519/- has been deposited in the Court and the remaining amount of Rs.82,173/- being under the sales tax, income-tax and royalty head payable by the contractor has been deducted, hence the payment may be considered to be paid in full to the satisfaction of decree and warrant of attachment may be recalled.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made are as under.

3. The plaintiff to the suit filed a Money Suit for holding him entitled for an amount of the work executed by him. The decree finally was passed by the competent court holding the plaintiff entitled for a decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-. The decree having not been executed, in consequence thereof, Execution Case has been filed being Execution No.14 of 2008.

4. It is further evident that when Execution proceeding was going on, one petition was filed on behalf of the Judgment Debtor by making objection that the plaintiff (decree holder) is not entitled for the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-, rather he is entitled only to get an amount of Rs.4,81,519/-, since, an amount of Rs.82,173/- was already deducted under the Sales Tax, Income-tax and royalty head which was to be paid by the contractor himself.

5. The said objection was dealt with by the Executing Court vide order dated 02.05.2014 by overruling objection of the Judgment Debtor and the petition dated 20th March, 2013 was allowed.

6. It further appears that again after lapse of about eight years, the similar objection was filed. The learned Court by taking note of the order dated 02.05.2014 passed in Execution Case No.14 of 2008 has overruled the said objection vide order dated 10.08.2022, against which the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

7. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. S.C.-I appearing for the petitioner-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Court has not appreciated the fact in the right perspective reason being that from the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-, a sum of Rs.82,173/-was the statutory deduction to be paid by the contractor and, hence, the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/- cannot be said to be the entitlement which has been made by the original Trial Court in favour of the contractor leaving apart the statutory deduction under the sales tax, income tax and royalty head which was to be paid by the contractor.

8. It has been contended that the State has already executed the decree so far as the actual entitlement of the contractor is concerned by disbursing an amount of Rs.4,81,519/- and, therefore, the contractor/plaintiff cannot be allowed to take double benefit.

9. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order suffers from error, hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and gone across the finding recorded by the learned executing court while passing the order impugned dated 10.08.2022.

11. This Court from the materials available on record, particularly the decree, has gathered that the plaintiff has been held entitled for disbursement in his favour of the decretal amount of Rs.5,63,692/-. The State although has a paid a sum of Rs.4,81,519/- and so far as the remaining amount of Rs.82,173/- is concerned, ground has been taken before the Executing Court that the aforesaid amount of Rs.82,173/- is not the entitlement of the plaintiff,