UJAGAR SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal must succeed. The Courts below have overlooked a settled course of decisions on the question involved. The questions that require determination are (i) whether a decree for money is not satisfied where the decretal amount had to be paid by a given date and on that date, the Court is closed, and the deposit is made on the first opening day of the Court (ii) whether the fact, that the money could be tendered to the decree -holder will make any difference and the payment made on the opening day of the Court would not be a good payment in terms of the decree? The Courts below were under the impression that unless a decree directs payment into Court, the Judgment debtor has to offer the money to the decree holder, in case, the Court is closed on the date on which the payment is to be made. It cannot be paid into Court on the first opening day so as to make it a good payment towards the decree.

(2.) ON facts, there is no dispute. On the 16th of September, 1963, a decree for Rs. 700/ - was passed on the basis of a compromise with a rider that if Rs. 500/ - were paid by the 15th of June, 1964, the decree would stand fully satisfied, otherwise the decree -holder will be entitled to recover the entire decretal amount. On the 15th of June, 1964, the Court was closed on account of vacation. The Court reopened on the 16th of July, 1964; and on that very day, the amount of Rs. 500/ - was deposited However, an application was made to the Court for condoning the delay in the deposit; and this application was rejected by the Court on the ground that amount should have been deposited before the 15th of June, 1964 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Jagraon, who is authorized to receive the deposit of the decretal amount, instead of the Court.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the Courts below were in error in not treating the payment made on the opening day of the Court as a good payment and one in terms of the decree.