K VEERA REDDY Vs. SHAIKSHAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 10 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, Kurnool District, against the respondents. THE suit was decreed on 28- 3-2005. Stating that the respondents did not discharge the obligation under the decree, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 187 of 2009 under Rules 37 and 38 of Order XXI of C. P. C, with a prayer to send the 1st respondent to civil prison. THE 1st respondent filed counter, stating that he has paid the entire decretal amount and that the petitioner issued a receipt in acknowledgement thereof. THE Village Elders are stated to have attested the receipt. It was further urged that the petitioner promised to report full satisfaction, but he did not do so. THE Executing Court dismissed the E. P., through order dated 16-7-2010. Hence, this C. R. P.

(2.) HEARD Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the 1 st respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

(3.) FROM a perusal of this, it is clear that the judgment-debtor is under obligation to ensure that the adjustment or payment pleaded by him is recorded by a Court. Though the principal obligation is on the decree holder to report compliance, the judgment-debtor is equally under obligation, to take necessary steps, particularly in view of the fact that non-recording of satisfaction would adversely affect him more, than the decree-holder. Sub-rule (3) places a categorical prohibition against the Executing Court from accepting any adjustment or payment, unless it has been certified or recorded.