GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. PREM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, affirming on appeal the decision of the Executing Court holding that the last instalment of Rs. 1159.00 was still payable by the judgment-debtor. It was within time and had not been discharged decree for Rs. 2250.00 costs (amounting to Rs. 534.75 nP) was passed against the judgment-debtor on the 5th of October, 1956. The amount decreed was in lieu of arrears of rent of a house of which the judgment-debtor was a tenant. A sum of Rs. 500.00 was paid in April, 1957, towards this decree, and thereafter on the 10th of May, 1957, the judgment-debtor moved the Debt Conciliation Board under section 9 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. It is not necessary to recapitulate what Transpired before the Board. Suffice it to say that a settlement was arrived at between the parties on the 15th of September, 1958, wherein it was agreed that the judgment-debtor would pay the decretal amount as also the rent that had accrued after the filing of the suit. All the amount was to be paid in six-monthly instalments of Rs. 1500.00 each. The first instalment was to be paid on the 1st of January, 1959, the second instalment was to be paid on the 1st of June, 1959, and so on. According to section 17 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, the civil Court's decree merged in the settlement arrived at before the Debt Concilatio Board. On the 22nd of February, 1960, the decree-holder applied for execution and in the execution application he gave a detailed statement of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. It was also mentioned that a sum of Rs. 1000.00 had been paid by the judgment-debtor after the settlement and a breach had taken place of the other terms of the settlement. Therefore, execution for the balance of the amount was sought. The proceedings kept on pending, and during the course of these proceedings some payments were made by the judgment-debtor. On the 22nd of August,-1960, a note was made by the Executing Court that the decreeholder admitted that his claim was confined to Rs. 1284.75 nP. and, accordingly, the judgment-debtor's objections were filed. It appears that the claim before the Executing Court regarding which a note was made on the 22nd of August, 1960, was a claim with regard to the original decree and it is common ground that the original decree had been fully satisfied.

(2.) The present dispute relates to the execution of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. According to that settlement a sum of Rs. 4659.75 nP. was due, out of which Rs. 2300.00 had been paid by the judgment-debtor, and the decree-holder, therefore, sought execution of the balanae of Rs. 2350.75 nP. This application was opposed by the judgment-debtor and the following issues were framed : -

(3.) The learned counsel for the judgment-debtor in the first instance contended that it appears from the record that two executions were going on one after the other-one of the original decree and the second of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. This may appear to be so on paper, but in substance execution was only going on after the settlement which had been arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. Even in the execution application dated the 22nd of February. 1960, the settlement before the Debt Conciliation Board is specifically mentioned. Therefore, the Executing Court was well aware of the true legal position, and it hardly matters whether it erroneously continued proceedings for execution of the first decree and not of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board, in which the first decree had merged. The fact still remains that the amount settled by the Debt Conciliation Board has not been fully discharged. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor. Therefore, it is of no practical importance that the Executing Court kept alive the proceedings under the first decree after its merger with the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. As such, the first contention of the learned counsel has not merit and must be repelled.