CHARAN SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was admitted to a Division Bench presumably to examine the impact of sub-rule (2A) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure on the facts found by the Court below. The said sub-rule is quoted hereafter :-

(2.) The facts giving raise to this petition are straight and simple. The petitioner before us, had obtained a money decree against the respondent in the sum of Rs. 1,449.50 on the basis of a pronote. He filed execution proceedings. The respondent-judgment debtor raised objections thereto on 15th September, 1970. While those were pending, he on 28th March, 1980 apprised the Executing Court by an application that he had on 25th December, 1979 paid the decretal amount out of Court to the petitioner and in token of it had obtained a receipt. On notice being issued to the petitioner, he refuted the assertion and claimed that the receipt was bogus and a forged one. This gave rise to the following two issues between the parties :-

(3.) The Executing Court allowed evidence to be led by the parties. Finally it held vide the impugned order that the decretal amount had been paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder and the receipt executed to evidence it was not proved to be the result of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. On such view being taken, the objection raised by the decree-holder was accepted and the execution file was ordered to be consigned.