PAGADALA CHENGAYYA Vs. NOOTHANAKALVA CHENGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether a counter filed by the judgment-debtor within 90 days, in answer to an execution petition of the decree-holder, raising a plea of satisfaction or adjustment of a decree would fulfil the requirements of Order XXI Rule 2 C. P. C.

(2.) The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry may be stated briefly. The respondent-laid an action for the recovery of certain items of property from the appellants, who are defendants 4 and 5 and some others. The suit was dismissed with costs of the appellants and this was affirmed on appeal. The appellants put into execution the decree for costs in their favour. This was resisted by the respondent on the ground that there was an adjustment of the decree on 14-9-1952 when the 4th defendant for himself and as repre-senting his brother, the 5th defendant, received Rs. 1200.00, Rs. 1000.00 being the price of two items of property to be conveyed to them and Rs, 200/-towards full satisfaction of the costs in ths suit and executed Ex, B-l as evidencing this agreement. The agreement was assailed as a forged document. This objection was overruled by the trial Court, which found that Ex. B-l was a genuine document and that the adjustment pleaded was true. In the result, the trial Court dismissed the petition. In the appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff, a further contention was raised on his behalf that the alleged payment could not be called in aid by the judgment-debtors since there was no appli-cation for recording satisfaction or adjustment within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 2 C, P. C. The lower appellate court disallowed this plea as also the one bearing on the truth of the agreement. It is that order that is now under appeal now.

(3.) In this appeal, the view of the District Judge as regards the construction of Order XXI Rule 2 is canvassed. It js urged that there is no scope for treating an objection petition as an application within the ambit fit Order XXI Rule 2 C. P. C., having regard to its language. A judgment-debtor who seeks certification of the payments made by him, should conform to the provisions of that order strictly. In the absence of an application in that behalf the Court is precluded from enquiring into the truth or otherwise of the alleged satisfaction or adjustment of the decree, continues learned Counsel. The answer of the Counsel for the respondent is that the objections embodying the plea of satisfaction would serve the purpose of Order XXI Rule 2 and when once it is brought to the notice of the Court, it is bound to investigate into the matter.