NAVAB KHAN Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by Ms. M. Ravindran, advocate.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,120/-, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 57-B/99 and the same was decreed on 16-9-2004 whereby it was directed that respondent No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs.45,822/- to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 along with interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. 13-5-1998. Petitioner was also the power of attorney of respondent No. 2. On 9-10-2004 execution petition was filed by the petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of respondent No. 2 as power of attorney. On 19-10-2004 lespondent No. 2 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code before the Executing Court, wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 2 has received the decretal amount from respondent No. 1, therefore, execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. In reply it was alleged by the petitioner that false receipts have been filed about the payment of decretal amount. It was alleged that the application has been filed by the respondent No. 2 to frustrate the genuine claim of the petitioner. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 was not authorised to take the entire decretal amount on behalf of petitioner. Reply was submitted by the respondent No. 1 on 28-9-2005, wherein it was alleged that entire decretal amount has been paid. After hearing the parties, learned Court below allowed the application and dismissed the execution petition, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since execution petition was filed by the petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of respondent No. 2 as power of attorney, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Court below to allow the application filed by respondent No. 2, wherein it was alleged that execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is against the law, which deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.