PURAN CHAND Vs. SAT PARKASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated January 19, 1985, passed by Senior Sub -Judge, Kurukshetta, dismissing objections filed by the judgment -debtor purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In a suit for possession by pre -emption of land measuring 63 Kanals 13 Marias a decree for recovery of Rs. 5000/ - was passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the vendee -Defendant. This decree was to be executed after June 15, 1983. This decree was passed on the basis of compromise Exhibit CI. The amount haying not been paid by the stipulated date the decree holders filed execution application and got attached 12 Kanals of land belonging to the judgment debtor vide order dated November 19, 1983. Notice was sent to the judgment debtor as required under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was at that stage that the judgment debtor Puran Chand, the present Petitioner, filed objections, inter alia, alleging that a sum of Rs. 5000/ - was paid to the decree holders Sat Paraash and Smt. Kamla Devi in the presence of Shiv Ram and Gainda Ram. It was further asserted that the decree holder was a money lender and was doing the business without any licence. After hearing arguments these objections were dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that no receipt was produced along with the objections regarding the payment of the decretal amount. At the time of the revision petition it was observed that these objections were dismissed summarily without recording the evidence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to prove his allegation that the amount of Rs. 5000/ - was paid within the stipulated period to the decree -holders, and this could be done by produced the -two witnesses in whose presence the said amount was paid, although no receipt was obtained. There is no force in this contention. More of paying money under the decree is provided under Order 1 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Sub -rule (1) of Rule 1 Provides payment of the decretal amount out of the Court to the decree -holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode where in payment is evidenced in writing. Rule 2(a) of Order 21 further makes it abundantly clear that no payment or adjustment is to be recorded at the instance of the judgment -debtor unless the payment was made under the manner provided under Rule 1 or the payment of adjustment is provided by the documentary evidence or the payment or adjustment is admitted on behalf of the decree -holder. Sub -rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 21 further provides that no payment or adjustment which is not certified or recorded, as aforesaid shall be recognised by any Court executing the decree. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it was not required by the Executing Court to record evidence of the two witnesses in whose presence the decretal amount is stated to have been paid to the decree -holders as no receipt regarding payment of the decretal amount was forthcoming. The Executing Court lightly rejected the objections. There is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.