Skip to content


Eusuffzeman Sarkar and ors. Vs. Sanchia Lal Nahata and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.606
AppellantEusuffzeman Sarkar and ors.
RespondentSanchia Lal Nahata and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 2 - certification, how to be made--record of certification, where unnecessary--payment of interest on judgment--debt, notified to court by an application for execution, if saves limitation--limitation act (ix of 1908), sections. 19, 20. - 1. the point in this appeal is very narrow and very technical. it is the case of a decree-holder applying for execution of his decree. at the time of the application for execution, he notified to the court by his application that he had received a certain sum from the judgment-debtor, and the finding of the court is that that sum had been paid in fast by the judgment-debtor by way of interest on the judgment-debt.2. the decree-holder relies upon this payment as saving limitation and the judgment-debtor replies that it cannot have that effect, because the payment of rs. 10 by the judgment-debtor was not certified; and in the next place, it did not operate to extend the limitation under the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the limitation act. the first point practically is this, that the.....
Judgment:

1. The point in this appeal is very narrow and very technical. It is the case of a decree-holder applying for execution of his decree. At the time of the application for execution, he notified to the Court by his application that he had received a certain sum from the judgment-debtor, and the finding of the Court is that that sum had been paid in fast by the judgment-debtor by way of interest on the judgment-debt.

2. The decree-holder relies upon this payment as saving limitation and the judgment-debtor replies that it cannot have that effect, because the payment of Rs. 10 by the judgment-debtor was not certified; and in the next place, it did not operate to extend the limitation under the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act. The first point practically is this, that the certification which may be given by the decree-holder under Order XXI, Rule 2, must be a certification on some days or at some time different from that on which the application for execution was made. It appears to us that the decree-holder may either apply to certify payment before execution or may do so on his application for execution of the decree. In the present case, he did notify to the Court that he had received this sum of Rs. 10; and that is all that he has to do in order to certify payment. It is, however, said that the Court should then have recorded this certification. It does not seem to us necessary under the circumstances, seeing that the application for execution was made and the Court acted on such application by allowing such execution to issue. Moreover, the Section speaks of 'certified' or recorded.' We are, therefore, of opinion that Order XXI, Rule 2, does not stand in the way.

3. As regards the other point, it has been found that Rs. 10 was in fact paid by the judgment-debtor himself by way of interest. That finding is sufficient.

4. The fact of the endorsement and the question as to who made it and the authority by which it is made, are immaterial. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs.


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