HIRALAL Vs. GANPATRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal cannot be entertained.

(2.) THE only question raised in this appeal is that in view of the specific term in the compromise decree the judgment -debtor was not justified in making the payment in Court even though he had paid process for informing the decree -holder about his having made such payment into the Court.

(3.) IT is clear from the aforesaid provision and particularly Clause (a) that where money is payable under a decree it is competent for the person liable to make the payment to deposit the same into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree. It is not disputed that the Court in which the money was deposited in the present case was the Court whose duty it was to execute the decree. It is also not disputed that the judgment -debtor made the payment in Court within time required by the compromise decree. It is also not disputed that he had paid the process for intimating the fact of payment to the decree -holder. Unfortunately, however, no notice was issued through Court regarding this payment. The decree -holder executed the decree in ignorance of the payment and obtained possession. The judgment -debtor thereafter applied for restitution under the inherent powers of the Court bringing to the notice of the Court that he had paid the amount of the decree into the Court and had done all things necessary to satisfy the liability under the decree. The Court upheld the judgment -debtor's contention and directed restitution. The appellate Court confirmed this decision. This is a second appeal against that decision.