MOOLCHAND Vs. PALWAR CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from an order passed by Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri. It was made on the application by the plaintiff in execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 176 of 1909. The decree is as follows: That Kastoor Chand, Nattoji, Mulohand and Omed Mull, the defendants herein, do pay to the plaintiff the said sum of rupees twenty-three thousand," etc. Subsequently to the decree a petition was put in under Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code by the 1st and 2nd defendants and not opposed by the decree-holder for a certificate by the Court of the adjustment of the decree as against them, and an order was passed that the plaintiff herein do enter up satisfication of the decree herein in full as against the 1st and 2nd defendants herein as agreed to by him by the said agreement." Latter when the execution application above referred to as against the other defendants was put in, objection was taken that the decfee had been fully satisfied by the adjustment referred to on the ground that the discharge of one of several joint promisors discharges the others as well. Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri overruled the objection and ordered execution to issue.

(2.) It is contended before us that the learned Judge was wrong on two grounds, (1) that satisfaction having been entered up nothing remains, and (2) that the releasse of one judgment-debtor operates in favour of all.

(3.) On the first point it is only necessary to observe that the term "satisfaction," although used in the order, is not one contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code. The words of Order XXI, Rule 2 are: "The decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree and the Court shall record the same accordingly." Admittedly the decree has been adjusted by payment so far as the 1st and 2nd defendants are concerned, but there has been no satisfaction, although that word appears in the order.