Skip to content


Sobha Ram Gopal Rai Vs. Tara Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All502; 117Ind.Cas.103
AppellantSobha Ram Gopal Rai
RespondentTara Chand
Cases ReferredRam Saran Das v. Johri Mal
Excerpt:
- - 579 and 343 and the primary condition of order 21, rule 18, which requires that applications for execution shall be made to the court for each of the cross-decrees is satisfied......by the firm sobha ram-gopal rai against an order in execution objecting to the application of tara chand, respondent decree-holder of decree no. 343 of 1926 for setting off decree no. 579 of 1925, in which he was a judgment-debtor, against his larger decree no. 343. there were three decrees as follows:(1) 556 of 1924, firm sobha ram-gopal rai v. firm ram narain johari mal, (2) 579 of 1925, johri mal, son of ram narain and banarsi das, son of johri mal v. firm pat ram das, ram saran das and lallu mal, (3) 343 of 1926, pat ram das, ram saran das v. johri mal, son of ram narain and banarsi das, son of johri mal.2. the objection of the appellant is that he had already attached decree no. 579 on his own decree, and therefore it cannot be set off now by the respondent. the question is.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the firm Sobha Ram-Gopal Rai against an order in execution objecting to the application of Tara Chand, respondent decree-holder of decree No. 343 of 1926 for setting off decree No. 579 of 1925, in which he was a judgment-debtor, against his larger decree No. 343. There were three decrees as follows:

(1) 556 of 1924, Firm Sobha Ram-Gopal Rai v. Firm Ram Narain Johari Mal, (2) 579 of 1925, Johri Mal, son of Ram Narain and Banarsi Das, son of Johri Mal v. Firm Pat Ram Das, Ram Saran Das and Lallu Mal, (3) 343 of 1926, Pat Ram Das, Ram Saran Das v. Johri Mal, son of Ram Narain and Banarsi Das, son of Johri Mal.

2. The objection of the appellant is that he had already attached decree No. 579 on his own decree, and therefore it cannot be set off now by the respondent. The question is whether Order 21, Rule 18 applies in the present execution case or not. No question of res judicata was argued before us, and the appeal has been argued solely on whether Order 21, Rule 18 applies or not. The present application of Tara Chand is dated 6th February 1928, and it is admitted by the appellant that previous to that application the appellant had not only secured attachment of decree No. 579 of 1925, but he had taken out execution of decree No 579 of 1925, and movable goods of Tara Chand, the judgment-debtor, had been advertised for sale. Therefore there were applications before the execution Court for execution of both the cross-decrees Nos. 579 and 343 and the primary condition of Order 21, Rule 18, which requires that applications for execution shall be made to the Court for each of the cross-decrees is satisfied. Accordingly it appears to us that Order 21, Rule 18(1)(b) applies and that the lower Court was correct in setting off the smaller amount due from Tara Chand under decree No. 579 against a larger amount due to Tara Chand under decree No. 343. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //