D RAMULU WARANGAL Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order dated 29.12.2001 directing issuance of proclamation of sale in E.P. No. 30/2001 in O.S. No. 323/1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Respondent obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner, and filed the execution petition to realise the amount covered by the decree by sale of the house property of the revision petitioner. The Court ordering proclamation of sale is the subject-matter of this revision. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner are that the trial Court granting interest at 23.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit is excessive and is not in accordance with law, and that the house purchased by the revision petitioner, by availing a loan from the respondent-Bank, should not have been ordered to be sold, that too when the revision petitioner questioned his removal from the service from the respondent-bank in W.P. No. 888/1994, which is still pending before this Court, and when the respondent-bank already recovered the loan from out of the salary of the revision petitioner during his tenure of service with the respondent-Bank till the date of his dismissal from service.

(2.) It is well known that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is bound to execute the decree as it is. If the revision petitioner felt that the rate of subsequent interest granted by the trial Court is excessive, his remedy was to file an appeal against the decree, but he cannot question it in the E.P. filed by the decree holder. The fact that the revision petitioner purchased the house property, which is now proclaimed for sale, by availing loan from the decree-holder-Bank does not preclude the Bank from bringing it to sale, if the loan amount is not repaid to it. The fact that the revision petitioner has questioned his termination from the service of the Bank in a writ petition and it is pending before this Court, is not a ground for not executing the decree obtained by the respondent-Bank. If the respondent-Bank had already recovered a part of the loan lent by it to the revision petitioner but claimed excessive amount from him, he ought to have contested the claim of the respondent-Bank in the suit, but he cannot, at the stage of execution of the decree, contend that the amount claimed in the suit was not correct, for the reason that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and should execute the decree as it is. If the revision petitioner made some payments after the decree had been passed, he should have got those payments certified under Order 21 Rule 2 C.P.C., within 30 days as contemplated by article 125 of the Limitation Act. It is well known that uncertified payments cannot be taken into consideration by the executing Court, and if the payments are certified but are not accounted for, the revision petitioner is at liberty to approach the executing Court and bring that fact to its notice by filing a proper calculation memo. If the payments are not certified, the revision petitioner can approach the respondent-bank for certifying the payments made by him to it, and after the payments are certified he can file a memo into the Court, but he cannot question the Court ordering proclamation of sale of his house in revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that by this revision, the judgment debtor is seeking more time for payment of the amount covered by the decree. The revision petitioner, by filing a revision petition against the order issuing proclamation of sale, cannot seek extension of time from this Court for payment of decretal amount, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C.