NANDAGOPAL GOUNDER Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed by the judgement-debtor against the order passed in E.A. 913 of 1984 in O.S. 589 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram.

(2.) The second respondent herein obtained two decrees against the petitioner herein in O.S. 287 of 1979 and 589 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram. He assigned the said two decrees in favour of the first respondent herein for valuable consideration. On the basis of the assignment, the respondent filed E.A. 913 of 1984 in O.S. 589 of 1980 under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. praying for the recognition of the assignment of the decree O.S. 589 of 1980 in his favour and to permit the execution of the decree assigned. The petitioner herein, who is the judgement-debtor, resisted the application on the ground that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2750 on 5-11-1983 in full satisfaction of the said two decrees to the second respondent and obtained a receipt evidencing such payment. Therefore he contended that the assignment in favour of the first respondent is not true and valid and since the second respondent had already received the amount due under the two decrees, the assignment is not binding on him. The learned District Munsif, Villupuram overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and allowed the application. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner-judgement, debtor has filed the present revision.

(3.) Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submit that under Ex. B-1, the entire amount had been paid and there was no amount due under the two decrees obtained by the second respondent against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after having received the amount under Ex. B1, the second respondent has fraudulently assigned the decree in favour of the first respondent. He also relies on the finding of the learned District Munsif, to the effect that the payment under Ex. B1, has been established. On that basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the said payment was not certified, the court is bound to take into consideration of that payment, which has been provided beyond all reasonable doubt. According to him, the provisions contained in O.21, R.2, C.P.C. cannot be construed to the effect that such a payment cannot be taken into account even in a case where the payment has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further contended that when the rules cast a duty on the decree-holder to intimate the Court about the receipt of payment and get it certified, the decree-holder ought to have brought it to the notice of the Court and having failed to do so, it is not open to him to contend that the payment cannot be put against him solely on the ground that it has not been certified as provided under O.21, R.2, C.P.C. According to him, the court has got ample jurisdiction to give proper relief to a party when prima facie the decree has been satisfied.