EUSUFFZEMAN SARKAR Vs. SANCHIA LAL NAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point in this appeal is very narrow and very technical. It is the case of a decree-holder applying for execution of his decree. At the time of the application for execution, he notified to the Court by his application that he had received a certain sum from the judgment-debtor, and the finding of the Court is that that sum had been paid in fast by the judgment-debtor by way of interest on the judgment-debt.

(2.) The decree-holder relies upon this payment as saving limitation and the judgment-debtor replies that it cannot have that effect, because the payment of Rs. 10 by the judgment-debtor was not certified; and in the next place, it did not operate to extend the limitation under the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act. The first point practically is this, that the certification which may be given by the decree-holder under Order XXI, Rule 2, must be a certification on some days or at some time different from that on which the application for execution was made. It appears to us that the decree-holder may either apply to certify payment before execution or may do so on his application for execution of the decree. In the present case, he did notify to the Court that he had received this sum of Rs. 10; and that is all that he has to do in order to certify payment. It is, however, said that the Court should then have recorded this certification. It does not seem to us necessary under the circumstances, seeing that the application for execution was made and the Court acted on such application by allowing such execution to issue. Moreover, the Section speaks of "certified" or recorded." We are, therefore, of opinion that Order XXI, Rule 2, does not stand in the way.

(3.) As regards the other point, it has been found that Rs. 10 was in fact paid by the judgment-debtor himself by way of interest. That finding is sufficient.