9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and while decreeing the suit, it was ordered that a sum of Rs. l,40,000/-shall carry future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. Since the judgment-debtors failed to pay the amount in terms of the aforesaid decree, decree holder Bank sued execution petition No. 19 of 1986, which was finally disposed of by this court on 14-3-1989. Again the present execution petition No. 32 of 1993, has been sued which was filed on 13-9-1993 and a sum of ₹ 1,20,444.39 was claimed to be due, outstanding and recoverable from the judgment-debtors as on 5-2-1990. 3. When the execution petition came up for consideration, the judgment-debtors filed objections, which have been registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was further averred by the decree-holder bank that the judgment debtor 3 objector did not make payment as per compromise (Ex. R-2) which was basis of disposal of execution petition No. 19 of 1986, as such the decree-holder Bank is well within its right to maintain this execution and to recover the amount as claimed in the execution petition. Case of the decree holder bank further is that the statement of account otherwise is correct and the amount is due from the judgment-debtors to the decree holder bank. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial in following issues on 19-7-1994; 1. Whether the execution petition is not within time? O.P. Obj. 2. Whether the-decree stands adjusted in view of the compromise dated 14- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing for the decree holder Bank while controverting the submissions made on behalf of the objector, has submitted that his case is fully covered by Article 136 of the Limitation Act in view of Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3, which are there on the file. Besides this, he submits that OMP No. 22/1989 in execution petition No. 19 of 1986 also supports his case and a cumulative effect of reading all the three together would cover his case under Article 136, particularly or any subsequent order directs any payment of money ............ According to him, Ex. R-3 for all intents and purposes has to be read in conjunction with Ex.R-2 on the basis thereof the said order was passed while disposing of the execution. He has submitted that the objector c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll and in view of the fact that the terms of the compromise are quite clear, 1 do not think the request for time should be allowed. The payment of ₹ 30,000/- is hereby certified and the OMP and the Execution Petition are disposed of in terms of the compromise. 10. This is clearly indicative of the fact that while disposing of Execution Petition No. 19/86, the court had taken into account not only OMP No. 22/89 but has also taken into account the terms of compromise Ex. R-2 and accordingly this have to be read together. It can safely be inferred that in terms of compromise Ex. R-2, the judgment debtor was to make payment and thus it can be presumed that there is subsequent order directing payment of money as embodied in Ex. R-2 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that despite his instructions and requests to the decree holder bank to adjust the payment against principal amount those have been adjusted against interest amount and other charges and according to him this could not have been done. He has gone on record to say that in terms of order dated 14-3-1989 the execution was dismissed as fully satisfied. When cross-examined to state before the court as to what instructions were given and to whom those instructions were given, then he states that he had given oral instructions and except the name; of one Manager, he does not remember the name of any other person. This court has no hesitation in holding that the decree does not stand fully satisfied in terms of the order dated 14-3-1989 which is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Contract Act. Shri S.S. Kanwar, again at this stage has pressed into service the judgment of this court : AIR 1988 HP 33. At this stage it is necessary to refer to : (1995) 4 SCC 26 : (AIR. 1995 SC 1572) Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. wherein the provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 (as amended by Act 104 of 1976) have been considered and in the face of this judgment, with respect it is submitted that AIR 1988 HP 3 does not hold the ground. Shri Kanwar submits that since the aforesaid judgment of Himachal Pradesh of 1988 had arisen out of the present execution on the objections of his client, as such amount had to be worked out in terms of the said judgment. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
