IMPORTANT POINT
Execution proceedings--Money decree--One time settlement scheme came subsequently and is not part of decree--No reliance on such a scheme could be placed.

M.M. Kumar, J.:-This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the Code’) is directed against order dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the judgement debtor- petitioner ( for brevity ‘the JD- petitioner’) under Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code. The Executing Court has recorded the finding that the objection filed by the JD- petitioner lacks substance and has dismissed the same.

2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised are that the decree holder- respondent, Central Bank of India (for brevity ‘the DH- Bank’) filed a civil suit bearing No.470 on 22.8.1989 against the JD petitioner. The suit was decreed on 21.2.1997 against the JD- petitioner with costs. A decree for a sum of Rs.301894.01 was passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amloh alongwith interest @ 15 percent p.a. with quarterly rest from the date of filing the suit till its realisation. On appeal filed by the JD petitioner the ld. Additional District Judge upheld the decree by affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. However, in the concluding paras the ld. Addl. District Judge took judicial note of the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) floated by the Reserve Bank of India and went on to observe as under:

“ 13. Before parting with the judgement this Court take judicial note of the fact that Reserve Bank of India has granted some concessions to the defaulting loanees provided they come to settle for the amount upto 31.3.2001. In view of the matter it is ordered that if the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for the settlement of their accounts before the date notified by Reserve Bank of India and settle their accounts with the bank then the plaintiff bank will grant all benefits and concessions as given by the Reserve Bank of India, instructions in this regard. 14. In the wake of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back well within time. Appeal file be consigned to the record.”

3. The decree holder- bank filed an application under Order 12 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code with a prayer to the executing Court to pass a final decree. The JD- petitioner opposed the application by filing objections under Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code asserting that the decree stood fully satisfied and adjusted. A reference was made to the OTS scheme floated by the Reserve Bank of India whereby the borrowers like the JD petitioner were called upon to make payment of the amount due to the bank in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. In pursuance thereof, the JD petitioner had deposited Rs. 80,000/- with the DH Bank and the same was accepted by the DH bank. The JD petitioner has claimed that another revised scheme was issued by the Reserve Bank of India calling upon the JD petitioner to apply for the settlement and adjustment of the account on or before 30.4.2003 and the JD petitioner on demand by the DH Bank paid Rs.2,40,100.00 (Rs. 24,000/- on 15.4.2003 and Rs. 2,15,100/- on 30.4.2003). It is claimed that infact approximately an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid in excess. The process of compromise under the revised guide-lines was required to be completed on or before 31.10.2003. It was accordingly claimed that the decree of the DH Bank stood fully satisfied as per the scheme of the Reserve Bank of India.

4. The claim made by the JD petitioner was contested. The decree holder- bank pointed out before the executing Court that an objection petition was earlier filed and the same was rejected by the executing Court and that the JD petitioner was not entitled to any concession as asserted because the concession was available only to those who approached the authorities for settlement purposes. The JD petitioner had approached the a