High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging execution proceedings on the ground that decree debts were paid. The court held that payments not certified under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC are non-recognizable and the petition was barred by limitation.
Petitioner allowed to seek indulgence to pay in installments under Order XX Rule 11 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939
CRP.No. 414 of 2016 ()
E.P NO.315/2005 IN O.S NO.530/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
SHEIK MUSTHAFA AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTAYAMPATHY, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER :
GOPAL, S/O KUMARASWAMI KOUNDER, RESIDING AT ATTAYAMPTHI, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. (CAVEATOR)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2017, ALONG WITH CRP. 415/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
amk
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2017
C O M M O N O R D E R
These revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner challenging two separate orders passed by the Court of Munsiff, Chittur in two different execution petitions. Petitioner is the defendant in two suits filed by the respondents. The suits were for recovery of money. The suits were decreed after contest. When the respondents/decree holders attempted to execute the decrees, the petitioner came forward with a case that the decree debts had been paid off subsequent to the decrees and the execution proceedings in both the matters are bad in law.
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016 2
1 and 2 of the C.P.C, which are extracted hereunder :
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016 3
whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs;
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he, avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.
2. Payment out of Court to decree-holder.- (1) Where
any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or a decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the court whose duty it is to
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016 4
execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly.
cases, the decree holders settled the claim through mediators and the
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016 5
amounts involved in both the decrees have been paid to them in full satisfaction of the claim. However, it is an admitted case that neither
the decree holders nor the petitioner approached the court for certification of the payment as required under Order XXI Rule 2 C.P.C. It is clear from Order XXI Rule 2(3) C.P.C that a payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as mentioned in the provisions shall not be recognized by any court executing the decree.
up a contention that the receipts issued were undated and they were issued one week prior to the filing of the original petition before this Court in the month of March, 2013. The court below after taking evidence found that the contention of the petitioner is unsustainable and factually a false one for the reason that he himself admitted in his affidavit that the payment was effected on 25-12-2012. This admission in the affidavit by the petitioner was taken note of by the executing court to find that the claim of the petitioner is bad in law
C.R.P Nos.414 & 415 of 2016 6
on account of Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which says that to record an adjustment or satisfaction of a decree, time prescribed will be 30 days when the payment or adjustment was made. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the court below much beyond the prescribed time. Therefore, the claim was barred by limitation.
In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition. Hence, the original petition is dismissed. The court below may allow the petitioner to seek indulgence to pay in installments as provided under Order XX Rule 11 C.P.C.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
amk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree can be recognized as satisfied when payment is not certified by the court under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC.
Whether the petition to record satisfaction of decree barred by limitation under Article 125 Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the execution petition which is not recognized as satisfied by order XXI Rule 2(3) CPC can be allowed to be executed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sheik Musthafa
Gopal
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
