REDDY Vs. NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein files 1.A No. 208/1974 in A.S. No. 31 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasapur, under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 and S. 151 C PC., to record full satisfaction, 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 Munsif's Court, Narasapur. 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 Subordinate Judge. Narsapur. During the pendency of (hat appeal, the appellants herein had filed LA. No. 208 of 1974 under Order 23, Rule 3 and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer ia 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 1600/- to the plaintiff- decree bolder, who gave a receipt which was filed along with petition to record full satisfaction. The decree-bolder (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 Order 23, Rule 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 Judgement debtors.

(3.) The lower Court framed the point for consideration to the following effect:whether the petition under Or. 23, CP.C, lay to it? (the appellate Court on the facts.) On a consideration of the point, the opinion was expressed that the receipt filed along with the application cannot be used to record a compromise under Or. 23, Rule 3 C P.C. In other words, the Court expressed the opinion that application to record full satisfaction did not lie to it under Or. 23, Rule 3, C.P.C.