Naik Pauree and Another vs Gujadhur Pauree and Another

Mitter, J.—We think that, in this case, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is erroneous, and must be set aside. There was a decree against the appellants before us for rent, and that decree directed, that if the amount decreed be not paid into Court within fifteen days from the date of the decree, the defendants should be ejected from the tenure. It is found by the Courts below that the amount decreed was actually brought into Court within fifteen days; but this money was not received by it, because, according to certain Departmental rules, it was to have been paid into the treasury. It is also found by the lower Appellate Court that there were no laches on the part of the judgment-debtors in complying with the Departmental rules for actually paying the amount decreed into the Government treasury. We think that this was a sufficient compliance with the decree. Where a decree directs the payment of money into Court within a limited time, it would be a sufficient compliance with the decree if the judgment-debtor bring the money into Court within that time and diligently take the necessary steps required by the Departmental rules for its actual payment into the treasury. For these reasons we are of opinion that the Munsif''s decision is right. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif with costs. We may also point out to the Munsif that, under the Spirit of the existing rules of the year 1881, Rule No. 9 to be found in p. 37 of the General Rules and Circular Orders of this Court, if this case was governed by them, the Munsif would have been bound to receive the payment of the money if it had been tendered by the judgment-debtors within the time limited by the decree. We assess the hearing-fee at Rs. 16.