9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 2, Order 21, Civil P.C. Applicability of Section 144, Civil P.C. regarding rendering of accounts by the decree-holder Analysis: 1. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal against an order in execution proceedings arising from a suit for possession and mesne profits. The appeal involved the recovery of a sum awarded to the decree-holder and subsequent execution attempts. The Court found that certain decrees were discharged as satisfied due to payments made by a third party, Benarsi Das, to the decree-holder, Mt. Kishan Dei. 2. The appeal partially allowed the decree-holder to recover a reduced sum from the judgment-debtor, Thomas Skinner. Following this, Thomas Skinner sought to convert his suit into an application under Section 144, Civil P.C., resulting in a judgment restoring possession to him. The decree-holder assigned her rights to an individual, Ram Rachpal, who then applied for execution of the decree. 3. The judgment-debtor opposed the execution application, arguing that no amount was due as the decree-holder had not rendered accounts as per Section 144, Civil P.C. The decree-holder contended that the judgment-debtor could not plead satisfaction due to non-certification of payments made by Benarsi Das, as per Rule 2, Order 21, Civil P.C. The Court below upheld the decree-holder's argument, leading to the judgment-debtor's appeal. 4. The Court analyzed the application of Rule 2, Order 21, Civil P.C. and found the lower court's interpretation incorrect. It established that the payments made by Benarsi Das to the decree-holder were not out-of-court payments and, therefore, Rule 2 did not apply. The Court differentiated between payments made outside the court's knowledge and those made pursuant to court orders, ruling in favor of the judgment-debtor. 5. Additionally, the Court addressed the decree-holder's obligation under Section 144, Civil P.C. to render accounts before executing the decree. Referring to a previous court order, the Court emphasized the necessity for the decree-holder to account for profits appropriated during possession. The Court directed the lower court to determine the exact amount realized from Benarsi Das and credit it towards the decree satisfaction. The decree-holder's assignee could proceed with execution after rendering accounts, as per the earlier court order. 6. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order, and granted costs to the appellant. It emphasized the importance of rendering accounts by the decree-holder and the proper crediting of amounts realized from third parties towards decree satisfaction.
|
