GOPAL PROSHAD BHAGAT Vs. RAJENDRA LAL PANJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was granted upon an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) The main question raised in the Rifle is, whether an application by a decree-holder certifying partial satisfaction of a decree is a step-in-aid of execution of the decree within the meaning of Article 182 (5) of the Second (First?) Schedule of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The question has been considered in several cases and answered in the affirmative. In Tarini Das Bandyopadhya v. Bishtoo Lal Mukhopadaya 12 C. 608 the learned Judges held that such an application is a step-in-aid of execution of the decree, and observed: "when a judgment-creditor comes into Court and certifies to the Court the payment of a sum, that proceeding takes place in consequence of an arrangement as to payment between him and the judgment-debtor, and because if he had not certified, the judgment-debtor could, under the law, compel him to do so. The effect of the certificate is to satisfy the decree so far as the sum certified is concerned." The same view was taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sujan Singh v. Hira Singh 12 A. 399 : A.W.N. (1890) 125. Mahmud, J., in that case observed that the rule laid down by this Court in the case of Tarini Das Bandyopadhya v. Bishtoo Lal Mukhopadaya 12 C. 608 is "a sound rule of law," because where a decree-holder has not only out of Court acquired a partial satisfaction of the decree, but where ha also comes to certify such partial satisfaction under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, he is taking a step by which he asserts enforcement of his decree in the exercise of those powers which are vested in him because he is a decree-holder."