SMT. MAUNA DEVI Vs. V.C. JHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1963 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Aligarh. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: - -

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court was wrong in taking into consideration the fact that Deep Chand joined post on 12 -2 -1958. This part of the decree was not certified u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC and, as such, the Executing Court could not take notice of this fact, because it was barred by O. 21 R. 2 CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that O. 21 R. 2 is not confined to money decree only but it applies to all decree and, therefore, this provision applied to the present decree also and, as such, the part of the decree regarding re -instatement of the decree -holder was to be certified and, as it was not certified, therefore, the Executing Court should not have taken notice of this fact. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the part of the decree reinstating the decree -holder on his post also needed certification. O. 21 R. 2 CPC runs as follows:

(3.) The use of the words 'money payable under a decree' clearly indicate that the adjustment u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC should be about the payment of a money, even though that money may be due under a money decree or any other decree. There can be no question of certifying an adjustment if the question of money being payable under a decree is not involved. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the words "or the decree is otherwise adjusted" means that adjustment is required under the law of any decree whether it relates to payment of money or not. The word 'the decree' in the second line has the same purpose behind it and, in my opinion, the word "the" relates to that decree under which a money is payable and, therefore, reading the entire O. 21 R. 1 CPC, I am of the opinion that O. 21 R. 2 CPC comes into play only when there is the question of adjustment or satisfaction of a decree in which money is payable and, in this view of the matter, the part of the decree in the instant case, directing the judgment -debtor to reinstate the decree holder was not a decree which needed satisfaction or adjustment u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC. This argument has, therefore, no force in it.