MANORATH Vs. ATMARAM SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of the order of the District Judge, Raipur, dismissing an appeal against an order of the Sub-Judge First Class, Bilaspur, granting an application for review. The facts are briefly as follows: The non-applicants got a decree against the applicant in the Court of the Sub-Judge First Class in Civil Suit No. 21 of 1928 and it is alleged that they had also got a decree against the applicant in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Second Class, Bilaspur. The decree in the Court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, was for Rupees 2,428-3-6 with interest at six per cent. per annum from the date of the decree till realization. It was passed on 10th August 1928. The decree in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Second Class, is. alleged to have been for Rs. 592-10-0. On 1st September 1928 the non-applicants applied for execution of their decree in the Court of the Sab-Judge, First Class, and a warrant for attachment of immoveable property was ordered to issue on 5th September. The village share was attached and a notice of sale was ordered to issue to the judgment-debtor on 12th October 1928, the case being fixed for 24th November. However, after the order was passed, Mr. Bose, pleader, who appeared for the decree-holder, stated to the Court on the same day that the claim had been fully satisfied, and the order for issue of notice was therefore discharged and the case was struck off as fully satisfied, the property being released from attachment. It is clear, then, that the payment was certified to the Court Under Order 21, Rule 2, On the same day however a written application with an affidavit was presented by one Bisram Bani, the agent of the decree-holders, stating that the pleader had made a wrong statement in Court on information given to him by Bisram through mistake, that actually the judgment-debtor had only paid the sum of Rs. 332-60 on 21st September, for which a receipt had been passed, that the decree-holders came to know this on seeing their khata, or accounts, and really it was only meant to get the execution struck off as partly satisfied.

(2.) BISRAM , therefore applied that the order certifying full satisfaction of the claim should be cancelled and in its place an order certifying only part satisfaction should be passed. That application and affidavit were presented, as noted above, on 12th October, and Mr. Bose again appeared on the 15th. The Judge then registered the application as Miscellaneous Judicial Case, and after issuing notice to the judgment-debtor, passed an order on 29th July 1929 reviewing his previous order of 12th October and instead passing an order striking off the execution case as partly satisfied. The judgment-debtor attempted to get that order revised in this Court, but Mohiuddin, A.J.C, following the usual practice of this Court, refused to entertain the application, as an appeal lay Under Order 43, Rule 1(w), Civil P.C. The judgment-debtor then appealed to the District Judge, but his appeal was dismissed, as noted above, and he has now applied for revision of the appellate order.

(3.) I therefore set aside the order of the lower Courts and instead dismiss the application for review, which was made by the non-applicants, and restore the original order of the executing Court passed on 12th October 1928, striking off the execution as fully satisfied. Costs of this application in all Courts will be borne by the non-applicants. I fix pleader's fees in this Court at rupees 25.