BITHKO TRADERS Vs. A V M TRADERS
LAWS(GJH)-1988-8-9
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 01,1988

Bithko Traders Appellant
VERSUS
A V M Traders Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA GOVIND V. MOOLCHAND [REFERRED TO]
MEHBUNISSA BEGUM VS. MEHMEDUNISSA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
SHRI PRAKASH SINGH VS. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.B.SHAH - (1.)Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 30/12/1983 passed below Ex. 1 in Darkhast No. 942 of 1982 the petitioners (original judgment debtors) have filed this revision application.
(2.)The limited question involved in this revision application is whether the executing Court can permit the judgment-debtor to lead the evidence to prove the alleged payment made towards the decretal amount which is not certified by the executing Court as required under Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(3.)It is the case of the petitioners that as per the decree in Summary Suit No. 479 of 1981 the decree for an amount of Rs 1 40 0 with 6 per cent interest per annum thereon from the date of the decree till realisation was passed against the petitioners and it was agreed that the decretal amount was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 3500.00 The first instalment was to commence from 1/09/1982 It is their say that in pursuance of the agreement between the parties by way of full and final settlement of decree the petitioners paid Rs. 1 0 0 in cash on 29-7-1982 to the judgment creditor. For the receipt of the said amount it is alleged that the judgment creditor has given a writing on 29-7-1982. As against this it is the say of the judgment creditor that as the judgment debtor failed to pay the amount as per the decree an execution application was filed before the City Civil Court on 23-12-1982 which was numbered as Darkhast No. 942 of 1982 In the execution application the petitioners raised the contention that the judgment debtors have paid Rs. 1 0 0 towards the decretal amount and as per the receipt the entire decree stands satisfied. The trial Court after considering the provisions of Rule 3 of order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code arrived at the conclusion that the alleged payment was not certified as provided under Rule 2 and hence there is no question of giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioners to prove their contention.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.