S.N. Saxena, J. - (1.) LIST has been revised. None responded for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has produced a certified true copy of the judgment dated 29 -7 -1991 which gave rise to the present revision application. Certain punishments were awarded to the petitioner, who was an Assistant Agricultural Inspector, on 2 -7 -1964. U.P. Public Services Tribunal invited counter and rejoinder affidavits and decided the case of the petitioner. The relevant order read as follows: - In the circumstances, the order contained in Annexures No. 4 and 5 are declared illegal and inoperative against the petitioner. In view of the above declaration, the petitioner is held entitled to the increments with effect from 2 -7 -1970. The O.Ps. are directed to fix the petitioner's pay in accordance with the above observations. So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner regarding his confirmation is concerned, sufficient data has not been given in the claim petition and we find ourselves unable to grant this relief to the petitioner. Costs on parties. Opposite parties did not challenge the aforesaid decision of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal before High Court and allowed it to become final. They however, did not fully comply with the order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal due to which the petitioner had to obtain necessary certificate from the Tribunal under Section 5(7) of U.P. Public Services Tribunal, 1976. He thereafter, instituted execution proceedings against the State of U.P. and others for recovery of his arrears from them. Notices were issued to the opposite parties - -judgment debtors who filed objection under Section 47 C.P.C. in the Court of Civil Judge, Pilibhit.
(2.) ON behalf of the judgment debtor State of U.P. and others, it was contended that the U.P. Public Services Tribunal had not issued any certificate for recovery of any specific amount due to which the execution application of the revisionist was not maintainable. There was also alleged on behalf of the judgment debtor that some amount had already been paid to the decree holder after fixing his pay in accordance with law and nothing more is due to him. For the decree holder, it was submitted that the total amount payable to him was not paid by the judgment debtor, and, therefore, the execution application was maintainable. Learned Civil Judge, Pilibhit agreed with and accepted the contentions of the judgment debtor and, therefore, dismissed the execution application. It appears from the impugned decision of the execution court that a certified true copy of the decision dated 29 -7 -1981 given by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal had not been filed before it due to which it felt difficulty in the execution of the same. As a matter of fact, no difficulty should have been there because the relevant portion of the order finds place in the aforesaid certificate issued under Section 5(7) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. Moreover the court of execution could have directed the decree holder to file a certified true copy of the judgment given by the Tribunal, if the same was necessary in the interest of justice. The court of execution, thus, did not properly exercise its jurisdiction. The court of execution held that no specific amount was mentioned in the aforesaid certificate issued by the Tribunal due to which order of the Tribunal could not be treated to be a money decree. This approach of the court of execution was not justified. The Tribunal had specifically observed for payment of increments which had fallen due to the petitioner with effect from 2 -7 -1970 and further directed the judgment debtor to pay the amount to the petitioner in accordance with the said observations. The Tribunal was not required by law to mention the exact amount payable to the petitioner on the date of the judgment. It was the duty of the execution court to ascertain the exact amount payable to the petitioner and get the same paid to him. Section 47(1) of C.P.C. is very clear on this point and reads as follows: All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(3.) THE court of execution, in view of the aforesaid requirements of law, was bound to ascertain the enact amount payable to the petitioner and get the same paid to him. The court of execution, however, failed to act in accordance with the aforesaid provision of law which resulted in miscarriage of justice so far as the petitioner was concerned. The determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioner was the duty of the court of execution with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The amount, if any, already paid by the judgment debtor but included in the amount found payable was liable to be adjusted. This court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction was not expected to calculate the amount payable to the petitioner by the judgment debtor and this exercise was to be done by the court of execution. The judgment and order of the Public Services Tribunal could not be rendered a nullity by the court of execution merely on the ground that the amount payable to the petitioner had not been disclosed in the certificate issued by the tribunal under Section 5(7) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The only course open to this court, therefore, was to send back the execution case to the court below for decision in accordance with law and the observations made above in the body of this judgment.;