RAM PROSAD ROY Vs. KIRIT ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued before me is whether under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can investigate the question whether the fact of satisfaction of a decree was certified to the Court by the decree holder.

(2.) In this case the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent. He put that decree in execution, when he was met with the plea by the respondent that the decree was satisfied and the fact of the satisfaction of the decree was certified to the Court by the decree holder. The petition put in by the decree holder is not forthcoming and the explanation is that it was either misplaced by the Court Amlas or that the decree-holder may have had something to do with it. The lower Appellate Court has on evidence come to the conclusion that the decree holder did certify the fact of the satisfaction of the decree to the Court and that, therefore, execution cannot proceed.

(3.) The learned V kil on behalf of the. decree holder urges that the Court should not have gone into that question at alt and that sub Section 3 of Order XXI, Rule 2, prevents the Court executing a decree from recognizing any payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded.