BEERAVALLI SREERAMBHAKTHA REDDY Vs. MANUKONDA VENKTESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge Guntur through which the E.P. filed by the petitioner was closed by recording full satisfaction. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.705 of 1996 before the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guntur, against the respondent herein. The O.P. was allowed through order dated 27-10-2000 awarding a sum of Rs.40.000/- as compensation, with interest at 12% per annum. Alleging that the obligation under the decree passed in the O.P. was not discharged by the respondent, the petitioner filed E.P.No.95 of 2000. The petitioner sought for arrest of the respondent, alleging that in spite of possessing sufficient means, he has not chosen to comply with the decree.

(2.) The respondent, on the other hand, filed E.A.No.44 of 2001 under Rule 15 of Order 21, read with Section 151 C.P.C., to record full satisfaction. He pleaded that on receipt of the notice in the E.P., he compromised the matter with the petitioner on the intervention of the elders of the village, and that in full satisfaction of the decree, he paid a sum of Rs.40.000/- to the petitioner. It was alleged that though the petitioner had undertaken to file a Memo of full satisfaction, into the Executing Court, he failed to do so. Pleading that the further proceedings are untenable, he filed the present E.A. On behalf of the petitioner PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.3 were marked. Respondent examined RWs.1 to 4 and filed Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. Through the order impugned, the Executing Court allowed the E.A.No.44 of 2000, and recorded full satisfaction. Consequently it terminated the E.P.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent fabricated the receipts - Exs.B.l and B.2 depicting satisfaction of the decree and unfortunately the Executing Court had taken them, on their face value. He submits that unless the amount paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder is certified by the Court in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21, the Court cannot take cognizance of the same.