Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The question before us in the present case is whether the two conditions required by the above provision of law have been fulfilled. As mentioned by me above, the application in question was given on 22-9-1953. This application was made by the judgment-debtors. It may be mentioned at the very outset that this application was admittedly given within ninety days, and therefore, there can be no question of the bar of limitation under Article 174 of the Limitation Act coming in the way of the judgment-debtors. In this application the judgment-debtor stated that on 24-6-1953 an accounting of the entire amount due to the decree-holder was done between the parties, and the entire decretal amount was satisfied by payment of Rs. 2533/- to the decree-holder (Kul degree zar ijra bahaq ho gai), and the said decree, therefore, is not capable of execution. They further stated that the decree-holder had promised that after summer vacation ho would have the said payment or adjustment "certified by the Court" (Darkhwast de kar adaigi ki tasdiq kara-dunga) and have the execution proceedings dismissed. It further stated that as the decree-holder was a Government servant and a man of status, the judgment-debtors believed the representation held out by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtors, however, subsequently, came to know that instead of taking proceedings for certification, the decree-holder had taken execution proceedings for the execution of the decree by the sale of the pro-perty and had dishonestly not taken any procee-dings of certification. (Bad niati se use tasdiq nahin karaya). Accordingly, the judgment-debtors were giving this application with a prayer to the effect that the execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder. be dismissed by "recording full satisfaction of the entire decree." (Begridar ki darkhwast ijrari ba-behaqi kul matalaba kharij farmai jawe). The prayer in the application was, therefore, a two-fold one--first, for recording full payment or adjustment of the amount due under the decree, and second, for dismissing the execution application after recording full satisfaction as above (be behaqi kul matalba). In other words, the application was a composite one. In so far as it prayed that the court should take note or re-cord payment or adjustment of the decree, it was an an plication under Order 21 Rule 2 Sub-rule (2), and in so far as it prayed that the execution application should be dismissed on that ground, it was an objection under Section 47 C. P. C.

15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the present appli- cation was merely an objection to the execution application under Section 47, C. P. C. Being merely an objection to an execution application, it cannot be treated as an application under Order 21, Rule 2, C. P. C. The implication behind this argument is that unless there is a separate application under Order 21, Rule 2 (2), an objection to an execution application cannot be treated as an application under Order 21, Rule 2(2). I am unable to accept this contention as well. I am of opinion that if the contents of the applicaion make out a double prayer, there can be a composite application combining both the two prayers in one application. It is now too late in the day to argue that the two prayers cannot be made in one application, and that there should be a separate application under Order 21, Rule 2(2). On this point also, the learned counsel for the respondent was unable to cite a single authority in his favour. On the other hand, the entire current of authorities in India is against him, I have already referred to the two cases of the Allahabad High Court on this point above. The cases of the other High Courts are also to the same effect.

"An application by the judgment-debtor praying for an adjustment to be recorded need not be a document separate from the objections filed by him on the ground of such adjustment.''

25. The above authorities make it amply clear that Order 21, Rule 2, C. P. C. is not to be construed technically, and, where there has been a substantial compliance with law, an application the contents of which give facts which bring the case within the purview of Order 21, Rule 2, should be entertained under th'at section, even though there is no express prayer for issue of notice, and even though the application is a composite application being made in the form of an objection to the execution application made by the decree-holder, provided that the said application is made within a period of 90 days.