BADAMO DEVI Vs. SAGAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioners are the owners of holding no. 88 situated at Chowk Bazar, Sultanganj. The opposite party was inducted as tenant therein. Title Suit No. 124 of 1978 was filed by the petitioners against the opposite party for eviction under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982. The suit was decreed exparte. Execution Case No. 29 of 1984 was, thereafter, levied for execution of the said decree.

(2.) IN the execution proceeding on 25.4.1985 the judgment -debtor -opposite party herein filed a petition under Section 47 read with Order 21, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1985. On 3.1.1987 the decree holder -petitioners herein filed rejoinder thereto by the impugned order dated 31.1.1 997 the executing court has been pleased to allow the said miscellaneous case.

(3.) SECTION 47 deals with the power of the Court executing the decree, while Order 21 Rule 2 deals with the procedure which a court, whose duty is to execute the decree, has to follow in a limited class of cases relating to the discharge or satisfaction of decrees either by payment of money (payable under the decree) out of court or adjustment in any other manner by consensual arrangement. The general power of deciding questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree under Section 47 can thus be exercised, subject to the restriction placed by Order 21 Rule 2 including Sub -Rule (3), which have been enacted to prevent a judgment -debtor from setting up false or cooked up pleas so as to prolong or delay the execution proceedings. Thus though it is open to the parties to adjust or compromise their rights under the decree, but if it amounts to adjustment of decree, it must be reported to the court, whose duty is to execute the decree, so that the court may record or certify the same.