AMARNATH Vs. JAI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by judgment-debtors fails on more than one ground.

(2.) In the first place, this petition arises out of execution proceedings relating, admittedly, to a suit of the nature of small causes of less than Rs. 1,000/valuation. Therefore, it is expressly barred by proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order.

(3.) Confronted with this difficulty, learned: counsel for the petitioners suggested that the Courts below have acted, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, with material irregularity. The point, at issue, is a very simple one. The petitionersjudgment- debtors pleaded adjustment of the decree outside the Court. Both the Courts below have rightly pointed out that such adjustment should have been certified under Order 21, Rule 2(2), Civil P. O. Instead of adopting this course, the judgment-debtors filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47, alleging that the matter has been adjusted out of Court. Obviously, such an objection could not be entertained in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2(3), which expressly debars any such plea from being recognized, unless it had been certified or recorded as provided in Order 21, Rule 2 (1 and 2). Mr. Puri for the petitioners urged that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 are not attracted, since, in the present case, the decree-holder has denied the alleged compromise. I must say that I have had some difficulty in following learned counsel's argument. If the decree-holder admitted the judgment-debtors' plea of adjustment out of Court, obviously, he would not have pursued the execution petition any further. Order 21, Rule 2(2) clearly empowers a judgment-debtor to inform the Court of payment or adjustment out of Court. Thereupon, the Court has to issue a notice to decree-holder to show cause why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified. If the decree-holder fails to show cause why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court is bound to record the same accordingly. Thus, the mere denial on the part of the decree-holder does not ipso facto put an end to the matter. Mr. Puri cited A.P. Bagchi v. Mrs. P. Morgan, 1935 All 513 (AIR V 22) (AT. There, it would appear that the decree-holder, at no stage, accepted the position that the decree had been adjusted out of Court. As Niamatullah J. observed: