DATTARAM JAGANNATH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH JAGGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Refusal to adjust amount decreed in favour of petitioner in execution of decree for money by opposite party is grievance of petitioner in this Civil Revision.

(2.) Petitioner filed a suit for money against opposite party where opposite party made a counter claim. On 16-3-1964, petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 10,723/- with interest at the rate of 6% pet annum and costs. In respect of claim of opposite party a preliminary decree for accounts was passed. Both parties preferred appeals. Appeal of opposite party against decree in favour of petitioner was dismissed on 29-2-1968. Appeal of petitioner against preliminary decree was allowed on 5-8-1970 and such decree was vacated. Opposite party did not challenge dismissal of his appeal and thus, decree against him for Rs.10,723/- with interest at 6% per annum and costs became final. He, however, assailed appellate decree vacating the preliminary decree for accounts and Supreme Court reversed the appellate decree and confirmed the preliminary decree. Final decree was passed on 14-10-1976 for Rs. 5,206. 63 paise with 10% profit over the same. Petitioner did not challenge the same. Opposite party, however, claiming higher amount preferred an appeal.

(3.) . Petitioner filed applications for execution of decree in his favour which were all dismissed. At that stage, opposite party filed application for execution of the final decree against petitioner which, was registered as Execution Case No. 37. of 1987. Petitioner filed fresh application for execution of the money decree which was registered as Execution Case No. 16 of 1979. Petitioner filed an application on 1-8-1980 in his execution proceeding for adjustment of the amount in final decree of opposite party. Opposite party objected to the executability of decree of petitioner as barred by limitation. Executing Court having rejected objection of opposite party, he challenged the order in Civil Revision where executing Court was directed to reconsider the objection of limitation afresh by order dated 9-5-1985. On reconsideration, executing Court sustained objection of opposite party to the executability of the decree on the ground of limitation by order dated 28-9-1985. Petitioner took steps for setting aside the order which was not accepted by the executing Court and was subsequently affirmed by this Court on 4-1-1990. On 25-2-1987, claim of opposite party for higher amount in the final decree was partially accepted and the amount determined in appeal was higher than liability of opposite party. Opposite party who has appeared personally in this Civil Revision stated that he has approached Supreme Court to get still higher amount.