KATIKIRDDI GAVARAMMA Vs. SURIREDDI SATYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein filed I. A. No. 208/1974 in A. S. No. 31 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, under the provisions of O. 23, Rule 3 and S. 151, C.P.C., to record full satisfaction in O. S. No. 306/1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Narasapur and pass a decree accordingly.

(2.) The facts leading up to the application may be briefly stated: The respondent in the appeal filed O. S. No. 306 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Narsapur, for recovery of money due under a promissory note said to have been executed by the appellants Gavaramma and two others. He obtained a decree. The appellants preferred A. S. No. 31 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur. During the pendency of that appeal, the appellants herein had filed I. A. No. 208 of 1974 under O. 23, Rule 3 and S. 151 of the Civil P. C. The prayer in the petition was to record satisfaction of the decree which was appealed against on the ground that the appellants had in full satisfaction of the decree paid Rs. 1,600 to the plaintiff-decree-holder, who gave a receipt which was filed along with the petition to record full satisfaction. The decree-holder (respondent) had opposed the application on the ground that nothing was paid under the decree, that the receipt in question is a rank forgery and the petition to record satisfaction did not lie under O. 23, R. 3 C.P.C. and if any satisfaction is to be recorded, a petition must be filed in the Court of the District Munsif on the execution side, but not in the Appellate Court as was done by the judgment-debtors.

(3.) The lower Court framed the point for consideration to the following effect : Whether the petition under O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C., lay to it? (The Appellate Court on the facts.)