MEGHRAJ Vs. BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant obtained a money-decree in the sum of Rs. 900 /- against the judgment-debtor Dhanraj. Rupees 400 /- were realized by the decree-holder. For the balance he started execution proceedings in the year 1964 on the allegation that the judgment-debtor had leased out his fields to one Balaji. THE decree-holder applied for a prohibitory order against the said Balaji. Notice was issued to Balaji to show cause why he should not be asked to deposit the debt (lease-money) due from him to the judgment- debtor from payment to the decree-holder. While showing cause, Balaji alleged that he had already made payment of the lease-money to the judgment-debtor on or about 8.11.1964. He thus denied the existence of any debt due from him to the judgment-debtor.

(2.) THE executing Court, in spits of the said denial, enquired into the allegation, Viz., whether Balaji had paid the lease-money to the judgment- debtor. It came to the conclusion that Balaji had not paid the amount to the judgment-debtor on the date alleged. He was, therefore, directed to deposit Rs. 800/- in Court for payment to the decree-holder.

(3.) HOWEVER, under the circumstances of the case, as the order of the executing Court had been set aside by the District Judge and a wrong had been righted, though technically in a way not provided by the Act, I suo motu take notice of these proceedings under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the order of the executing Court as one being without jurisdiction.