DEVINDER KUMAR SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A money decree was passed by this court in appeal and sent to District Judge, Kathua for execution. From there it was transferred to learned District Judge, Jammu, who held the decree as having been satisfied. He also rejected the execution proceedings on the ground that decree holders had not filed a fresh application for execution before him in terms of Order 21, Rule 10 CPC, Appellant -decree holders are aggrieved of this order on a number of grounds.

(2.) MR . J.P. Singh, learned counsel for appellants submits that the executing court had fallen in error on both counts. According to him it was not necessary for appellants to file a fresh application for execution, as they had already filed one before this court which had passed, the decree. Secondly, the decree could not have been held to have been satisfied as appellants had not been paid the decretal amount in full.

(3.) I have considered the matter. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a decree -holder is obliged to make an application seeking execution of the decree. The execution proceedings canâ„¢t be set in motion without such application having been made by the decree holder. Nor can the executing court embark on execution of a decree suo -moto. But Order 2 1 Rule 10 CPC gives him different options. He may make it to the court which has passed the decree or, to the court where the decree stands transferred for execution. Where it has been made before the court passing the decree, it need not be made before transferee executing court. Therefore, a transferee executing court canâ„¢t reject proceedings on that ground. Viewed thus, it is not difficult to hold that since appellants had made the requisite application before this court, they were not required to file any further application before the executing court and rejection of proceedings on this court was not justified.