- (1.) The present revision application has arisen out of the decree passed in Title Suit No.44 of 1981 which was instituted by the plaintiffs-Mohri Devi Sethi and her husband-Lalchand Jain Sethi (predecessors of the opposite parties). That the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 13.03.1986 whereby defendant-petitioner/judgment debtors were directed to be evicted from the suit premises. Against the said judgment/decree, judgment-debtors preferred Title Appeal No. 23 of 1986 which was allowed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, 1st by judgment and decree dated 01.07.1992 and 30.07.1992 respectively. The plaintiffs/O.Ps challenged the same in Second Appeal No. 109 of 1992(R). During the pendency of the appeal, the suit property was bequeathed by the plaintiffs (predecessor) to Chandrakala Jain, w/o Santlal Jain, Surender Jain and others (O.P./decree holders), in the present revision. The Second Appeal vide judgment dated 29.10.1999 affirmed and restored the decree passed in Title Suit No.44 of 1981. Thereafter O.P.-decree holders instituted Execution Case No.4 of 2011 for executing the decree. On summons/notice, the petitioner/judgment debtors filed the show cause praying therein to dismiss the Execution Case No.4 of 2011 which was rejected by the Executing Court vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif, Ranchi), the instant revision has been preferred.
(2.) Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Senior counsel, while assailing the impugned order, has argued that after the bequeathing of the suit property to the O.P./decree holder and after demise of the original landlord, Chandrakala Jain had applied for Letters of Administration in L.A.Case No.246 of 1993 in the court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. That L.A.Case No. 246 of 1993 was compromised before the Lok Adalat on 27.05.2011 wherien the suit property was allotted in favour of Surendra Kumar Jain, Rahul Jain, Kiran Devi Jain and others. That Shantilal Jain was looking after the property and prosecuting the cases pertaining to the suit property and he was realising rent from the defendant/tenants i.e. the father of the judgment debtors. It is urged that after the judgment in Title Appeal No.23 of 1986, Shantilal Jain approached the tenants for creating a fresh tenancy on enhanced rent of Rs.1250/- per month which was accepted by the petitioner/judgment debtors consequent thereto Shantilal Jain realised the enhanced rent and granted rent receipts in token thereof as per Annexure-1 series.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the judgment debtor had filed his show cause (Annexure-3) raising the objection that the decree had become inexecutable as it had been satisfied and discharged due to creation of a fresh tenancy after the judgment passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 1986 and from the rent receipts issued by Shantilal Jain at enhanced monthly rent it is manifestly clear that due to such sequence of events and development there was discharge and satisfaction of the decree. It is submitted that since there was adjustment/satisfaction of the decree by issuance of rent receipts at enhanced rate as stated by the petitioner in the show cause the Executing Court ought to have instituted miscellaneous case in terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with 459 of the Civil Court Rules for inquiry and determining the question regarding the discharge and satisfaction of the decree. In support of the contention he has relied on the decision in the case of Moti Lal Banker v. Maharaj Kumar Mahmood Hasan Khan, 1968 AIR(SC) 1087 and in the case of M. P. Shreevastava v. Veena, 1967 AIR(SC) 1193. It is contended that adjustment and satisfaction of the decree by the judgment debtor can be pleaded in the execution application filed by the decree-holder and the same is not barred by limitation. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision in the case of Ram Dass v. Mathura Lal, 1982 3 SCC 198.;