Ram Kumar (deceased) through LRs vs Kanshi Ram

Present revision petition is directed against the order dated

21.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned executing Court, whereby the

request made on behalf of the petitioner/judgment-debtor for dismissal of the

execution application, was declined.

Notice of motion was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The factum of decree in favour of the decree-holder is not in

dispute. Combined reading of the impugned order as well as the order dated

29.06.2015 passed by this Court would make it crystal clear that the request

made by the judgment-debtor before the learned executing Court, seeking

dismissal of the execution application having been duly satisfied, was factually

wrong and it was rightly declined by the learned executing Court, while passing

the impugned order. It is so said because the stand taken by the judgment-debtor

before the learned executing Court and this Court has been found self-

contradictory. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that learned

executing Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order

and the same deserves to be upheld.

It is the settled proposition of law that the learned executing Court

cannot go beyond the decree. Decree-holder is entitled to get the decree duly

satisfied, while pursuing his execution application. It is equally true that the

judgment-debtor has to discharge his financial liability in accordance with the

decree passed against him, which has not been discharged by the petitioner so

far. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order

passed by the learned executing Court and the same deserves to be upheld, for

this reason also.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted

above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered

view that since the learned executing Court was well within its jurisdiction to

pass the impugned order, the same deserves to be upheld. The revision petition

is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must

fail. No case for interference has been made out.

It has gone undisputed between the parties that the petitioner has

deposited an amount of Rs.74,469/- with the Registry of this Court, in

compliance of the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by this Court. The said

amount is ordered to be released in favour of the decree-holder/respondent

against proper receipt and after due identification.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made and directions

issued, present revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to

costs.