DASHMESH RICE MILLS Vs. GOVIND RAM ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenges order dated 8.4.2003 passed by the Civil Judges (Jr. Division), Karnal rejecting the objections of the judgment-debtor-petitioners (for brevity, 'the JD-petitioners') in the proceedings initiated by the decree-holder-respondent (for brevity, 'DH- respondent') to execute the decree dated 12.11.2001.

(2.) THE Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal vide his judgment and decree dated 12.11.2001 decreed the suit of the DH-respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,62,208/- in favour of the DH-respondent with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs till realisation of the decretal amount. The JD- petitioners were all held liable jointly and severally to pay the decretal amount. It was further directed that the decretal amount along with interest upto the date of payment be paid within four months from the date of decree i.e. 12.11.2001. The DH-respondent instituted the execution proceedings on 25.2.2002. Various objections were raised to the execution. Firstly, it was objected on the ground that execution is pre-mature because four months time w.e.f. 12.11.2001 would come to an end on 12.3.2002 and the execution proceedings having been initiated on 25.2.2002 was premature. Secondly, it was objected to on the ground that the decree has not been drawn in accordance with the pleadings because the JD-petitioners were liable to pay only an amount of Rs. 99,250/- as per their account books. It was further objected on the ground that interest at the rate of 18% per annum violates the provisions of Section 34 of the Code and, therefore, the decree could not be executed. The executing Court after considering various objections have refused to go beyond the decree and dismissed the objections of the JD-petitioner in the following words :-

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the JD-petitioners but do not feel persuaded to accept the same. It is well settled that the exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. In the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, 2001(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 280 : 2001 AIR SCW 2647, the Supreme Court has explained the scope of powers conferred under Section 47 of the Code. It has been concluded that all questions arising between the parties have to be determined under Section 47 of the Code and not by filing a separate suit. The observation of their Lordships showing that the executing court cannot go behind the decree reads as under :