Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAMUNA LAL versus OM PRAKASH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jamuna Lal v. Om Prakash - CIVIL REVISION No. 795 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 8386 (4 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Judgement Reserved on 24.4.2007

Judgement Delivered on  4.5.2007

(Reserved)

Civil Revision No. 795 of 1985

Jamuna Lal (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) Versus Om  Prakash and others .

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Revision is withdrawn/ treated to be withdrawn to this court under section 24 CPC .

At the time of argument on one appeared for respondents, hence, only the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant were heard. Typed copy of the impugned order was supplied on the date on which arguments were heard.

Opposite parties, Om Prakash and others instituted O.S No. 50 of 1977 against Jamuna Lal original applicant. The suit was for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on the basis of compromise. Under the compromise it was provided that a blank pronote containing only the signatures of Jamuna Lal defendant which was in possession of plaintiffs would be returned by the plaintiffs/ decree holders to Jamuna Lal in court after serving a notice upon him and thereafter Jamuna Lal would pay the decree holder an amount of Rs. 43520/- in yearly instalments of Rs. 5000/- each payable on or before 15th April every year failing which decree holders would be entitled to recover the entire amount through execution. Plaintiffs decree holders filed execution case No. 15 of 1981, stating therein that inspite of their notice judgment debtor did not come to take the pronote and also did not pay the instalment. Along with execution application original pronote was also filed. Jamuna Lal filed objections under section 47 C.P.C, which were registered as execution Case No. 73 of 1981. The grievance of Jamuna Lal was that condition mentioned in the compromise decree had not been complied with and the original pronote which was filed by the decree holder in court alongwith execution application was forged and did not contain his signatures. The court below i.e. Civil Judge , Deoria thoroughly disbelieved the version of judgment debtor, Jamuna Lal and substantially rejected his application under section 47 C.P.C through order dated 1.11.1985. This revision is directed against the said order. (In the relief clause of the revision the date of impugned order has wrongly been mentioned as 8.11.1985).

The court below held that the pronote which was filed by the decree holder was the original pronote containing the signatures of judgment debtor. The said finding was based upon expert report, the statement of the decree holder that no other pronote was written by the judgment debtor in his favour and the evidence of one of the witnesses of judgment debtor himself. The argument of learned counsel for the judgement debtor that the original pronote of the judgement debtor could be given by the decree holder to some other money lender for being misused was rejected by the court below as too far fetched and fantastic.

I do not find any error in the findings of the court below. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India Vs. Intexport (Registered) 1992 (3) SCC 159 wherein it has been held that no executing court can go beyond the decree. In my opinion, the said authority has not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. Executing curt in the instant case is not at all gone beyond the decree.

The other objection taken by the judgment debtor in his application under section 47 C.P.C regarding inclusion of certain plots of land which were not mentioned in the decree was accepted by the court below and relief in that regard was granted.

Accordingly there is no merit in the revision hence it is dismissed.

4.5.2007

Waqar/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.