The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree holder must have the authority to receive the decretal amount on behalf of another party, and any alleged payment must be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

N.K. Mody, J.

Petitioner by Ms. M. Ravindran, advocate.

None for the Respondents, though served.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2007 passed by XIII Additional District Judge, Indore in Execution Case No. 57-B/99/04, whereby application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, present petition has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 68,120/-, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 57-B/99 and the same was decreed on 16-9-2004 whereby it was directed that Respondent No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 45,822/- to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 along with interest ' 6% P.A. w.e.f. 13-5-1998. Petitioner was also the power of attorney of Respondent No. 2. On 9-10-2004 execution petition was filed by the Petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as power of attorney. On 19-10-2004 lespondent No. 2 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court, wherein it was alleged that Respondent No. 2 has received the decretal amount from Respondent No. 1, therefore, execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. In reply it was alleged by the Petitioner that false receipts have been filed about the payment of decretal amount. It was alleged that the application has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 to frustrate the genuine claim of the Petitioner. It was alleged that Respondent No. 2 was not authorised to take the entire decretal amount on behalf of Petitioner. Reply was submitted by the Respondent No. 1 on 28-9-2005, wherein it was alleged that entire decretal amount has been paid. After hearing the parties, learned Court below allowed the application and dismissed the execution petition, against which present petition has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since execution petition was filed by the Petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as power of attorney, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Court below to allow the application filed by Respondent No. 2, wherein it was alleged that execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is against the law, which deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Order XXI, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure deals with the application for execution by joint decree-holder. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure in case where decree has been passed jointly in favour of more than one person, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, anyone can apply for the execution of whole decree for the benefit of all. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure where the Court finds sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this Rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application.

5. In the matter of Hasmatullah v. Sunil Kumar 1990 (1) MPWN 36 this Court has held that one of the decree holder cannot give valid discharge. In the matter of Valchand Gulabchand Shah v. Manekbai Hirachand Shah : AIR 1953 Bom 137 Bombay High Court has observed that if the shares of the decree-holders are apparent on the face of the decree either expressly or by necessary implication, it is not strictly speaking a joint decree. In such a case, each decree-holder can take out execution in respect of his own share. But where the shares of the respective decree-holders are not apparent on the face of the decree, either expressly or by necessar