Parminder Singh and Others vs Avtar Singh and Others

Sat Pal, J.—During the course of arguments, Mr. S.C. Kapoor, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew ray attention to order XXI, Rule 1, sub-rule (3) of the CPC which reads as under :-

"(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely :-

(a) the number of the original suit;

(b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendant;

(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs;

(d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and

(e) the name and address of the payer."

The learned counsel further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid sub-rule any third party can also deposit the decretal amount with the decree holder after giving the appropriate particulars. He also submits that in terms of the said sub-rule he has handed over cheque No. SB/17-0163247, dated 8.5.1996, issued by State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22 D, Chandigarh drawn in favour of State Bank of India A/c Ambha Rolling Mills for Rs. 18,29,187.00 towards the full and final settlement of the decretal amount payable to the bank. In view of the said provision of law Mr. Harish Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank has accepted the said cheque subject to its encashment in full and final settlement of the decretal amount. He further submits that since the decretal amount has been paid in full, the bank shall not take any step to sell the plot in-question.

Mr. Gaur, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of JD (Avtar Singh), however, has opposed, the payment of the decretal amount to the bank by third party Shri Parminder Singh. He submits that the a learned Single Judge of this Court has already held that the said petitioner has no locus standi to file any objection against the execution of the decree and the SLP filed by him was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. He, therefore, contends that no payment can be made in these proceedings. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Goenka Vs. Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and Others, and M/s. Devidayal Rolling Mills Vs. Prakash Chiman Lal Parikh and others, .

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor. As stated hereinabove, the learned Single Judge of this Court only held that the petitioner had no locus standi to raise any objection in execution of the decree passed in favour of the bank. By making this payment the petitioner infact has not been permitted to rise any objection against the execution of the decree. On the contrary the JD should feel satisfied that the decretal amount standing against him, has been paid to the bank (decree-holder). In view of the these facts, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor are not relevant for this case. I, however, make it clear that payment of the decretal amount by the petitioner to the bank shall not confer any right on the petitioner with regard to the plot in-question. Since the learned counsel for the bank has stated that on the encashment of the cheque the bank will not take any step for the sale of the plot in-question, the present petition has become infructous and the same is dismissed as such. It is also made clear that the learned counsel for the bank has been directed to accept the cheque in terms of sub-clause (3) of Rule 1 of order XXI.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties on usual payment.