MANGILAL Vs. J CHANDRAMOULI SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground urged by Sri Appa Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant in this appeal is that the decree passed on 24-2-1968 in O.S.163/1 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Shorapur was not executable. The decree in question reads as follows:

(2.) A memorandum of cost is also attached to the decree. The contention of Sri Appa Rao is that the decree is not in conformity with the form prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for the preparation of a money decree, viz., Form No.1 in Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prescribed form reads thus:

(3.) The difference between the decree that has been drawn up in this case and the prescribed form is that instead of the words 'be paid by the defendant' to be found in the form the words 'the defendant is liable to pay have been employed m the decree. Sri Appa Rao contends that the decree is merely declaratory in nature and if the plaintiff wants to recover the money due to him, he has to file one more suit on the basis of this decree on the ground that there is no order to pay. The word 'decree' is defined in S.2(2) of CPC., which is as follows: