SAILAJA KANTA MITRA Vs. MAHADEB MARWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an execution proceeding. The appellant on 26 May 1926 obtained from the Munsif of Purulia a decree against the respondents for Rs. 1,999-10-0 with future interest at 6 per cent per annum. Out of the decretal amount a sum of Rs. 400 appears to have been realised some time in the year 1927. Thereafter, in June 1933, at the instance of the decree-holder, the decree was sent for execution to the Small Cause Court of Calcutta. The certificate which was sent by the Munsif of Purulia to Calcutta stated the decretal amount due to be Rs. 1,599.10-0 after giving credit for Rs. 400 which was realised in 1927. Future interest was also mentioned in the certificate but it was not clearly specified whether the future interest was to run from the date of the decree or from the date of the certificate. The decree-holder put in an application for execution at Calcutta but in doing so he calculated the interest on the decretal amount not from the date of the decree to which he was obviously entitled but from the date of the order of transfer of the decree passed by the Munsif of Purulia, namely 5 June 1933. The decree was thus executed for a lesser amount than what was actually due. The amount for which the execution was taken out was realised. Thereafter the Calcutta Small Cause Court certified the complete execution or, in other words, the satisfaction of the decree to the Munsif of Purulia where the decree was shown as fully satisfied. Later on the decree-holder seems to have realised the mistake and put in an application for execution to realise interest for the intervening period, that is for the period between the date of the decree (26 May 1926) and the date of the order of transfer (5 June 1933). THIS execution was disallowed by the Court of first instance and the order has been upheld by the lower appellate Court. The decree-holder has preferred this appeal.

(2.) IN my opinion the view of law taken by the Courts below is correct. The position is that the decree stands satisfied. It may be due to a certain mistake committed by the decree-holder. As long as the order of satisfaction remains no further execution can be taken out. Whether the order of satisfaction is liable to be set aside is quite a different matter on which I express no opinion. But here we are concerned whether the Courts below were right in refusing to execute the decree. The cases referred to by the learned District Judge of Manbhum are all to the point. Dwijendra Krishna Dutt V/s. Kedar Nath Poddar 1929 Cal 670 and Panaji Girdharlal V/s. Ratanchand Hajarimal Marwari 1933 Bom 364 have laid down the principle that once a decree has been entered as satisfied, execution cannot be taken out for any sum which may have been left out as long as the order of satisfaction stands. This principle has been accepted in this Court also in Phulchand Ram Marwari V/s. Naurangi Lal Marwari (1935) 16 PLT 906. I accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.