G SATYANARAYANA Vs. PATHALA LAXMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 2/90 in E.P. No.13/88 in O.S.No.200/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bobbili.

(2.) The facts in brief are, the respondent herein/judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21 Rule 2(2) C.P.C. praying to issue notice to the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder calling upon him as to why full satisfaction in E.P.No.13/88 should not be recorded as certified in view of the full satisfaction receipt passed by the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder on 1-1-1990 in his favour after receiving Rs.25,000/- from him in full satisfaction of the E.P. amount of Rs.30,025.00. The Court below had recorded the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/judgment-debtor i.e., respondent in the present Revision and P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked and on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 recorded. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Court below had allowed the application and had recorded the full satisfaction of the decree. The Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, aggrieved by the said order had filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri R. Chakravarthi, representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder had made elaborate submissions and had taken me through the evidence recorded by the Court below and had contended that the Court below should not have believed the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, the alleged attestors of Ex.A-1 and there are several contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence. Further, the learned Counsel had contended that the scribe was not examined by the Opposite Party and in fact the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder had chosen to examine the scribe R.W.2 and in view of the non-examination of the scribe by the Opposite Party, the Court below should have disbelieved his version and should have dismissed the application. The learned Counsel also had relied upon the decision of this Court in V. Satyawathi v. P. Venkataratnam and had contended that non-examination of the scribe in such a case is fatal and on this ground the Court below should have disallowed the application.