BABA RAMNATH KALIKAMLI WALA Vs. LACHHMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question at issue was whether an execution court on an application by the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 2(2), of the Civil P. C., should record as a certified adjustment of the decree an alleged executory contract of adjustment where the factum of the adjustment was denied by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor had not performed his part of the contract prior to his application in court.

(2.) Dr. Surendra Nath Sen (with Babu Surendra Nath Gupta) for the appellant, contended that a mere denial of an adjustment by the decree-holder was not enough and did not amount to "showing cause," and cited--Arjan Singh v. Harcharan Singh Weakly Notes 1884 p. 40, Champa Lal V/s. Mahesh Sitla Bakhsh Singh Weekly Notes 1888 p. 82, Runglal V/s. Hem Narain Gir (1885) I.L.R. 11 Calc. 166, Muhammad Kasim V/s. Rukia Begam (1919) I.L.R. 41 All. 443, and Shaik Davud Rowther V/s. Paramasami Pillai .

(3.) He, however, conceded that this did not shift the burden of proof, and the adjustment when denied must, in the first instance, be proved by the judgment- debtor. He contended that an inquiry should have been made by the execution court and the adjustment, if proved, recorded as certified.