Judgment:
ORDER
1. This revision petition is against the order declining to entertain the application under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. for recording satisfaction of the decree.
2. The petitioner filed an application stating that the properties belonging to him are brought to sale in execution of the decree and the claim petition filed by him was dismissed for default. Subsequently pursuant to the panchayat he paid a sum of Rs. 5,500/-in full settlement of the decretal amount and obtained a receipt from the respondent-decree-holder. The decree-holder denied the allegations about the panchayat and also the payment of the decretal amount. When the petition has come up for hearing, the decree-holder took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the application under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. at the instance of the third party. The preliminary objection is upheld by the Court below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. does not preclude the party from claiming that the decree has been satisfied. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. enables the judgment-debtor or a surety only to file a petition and others are not competent to file the application. Order 21, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. to the extent relevant are as follows :
'Payment under decree :
(1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely :
(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or
(b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.
(2) Where any payment is made under Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post acknowledgment due.
(3) Where money is paid by the 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 defendants;
(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 prayer.
(4) On any amount paid under Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in Sub-rule (2).
(5) On any amount paid under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment;
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order of payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities of the bank, as the case may be. 2.(1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, (or the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted) in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree- holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly.
(2) The judgment-debtor (or any person who has become surety for the judgment-debtor) also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court, to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall record the same accordingly.
Rule 1 is concerned with diverse modes of payment of the decretal amount. Clause (b) of Rule 1 visualises the payment out of Court to the decree-holder and such payment should be evidenced by postal money order or through Bank or a receipt reduced into writing. There is absolutely no semblance of indication as to the person who can pay the amount in the manner postulated in clause (b) Regarding payments under Clauses (a) and (c) the judgment-debtor is unable to give notice of such payment to the decree-holder in the manner provided therein. The requirement of furnishing the name and address of the payer in Clause 3(e) furnishes a clue to the person who can be payee and such payer is not confined to the judgment-debtor. The circumstance of the absence of specific mention of judgment-debtor with reference to mode of payment in Clause (b) of Rule 1 as distinct from Clauses (a) and (c) conpled with the requirement of name of the payer in Sub-rule 3(1)(e) including any person clearly demonstrate that the person other than the judgment-debtor is not precluded from paying the decretal amount. This can be viewed from another perspective also namely the decree-holder is concerned with the payment of his decretal a mount whatever be the source for such payment and if any person comes forward to pay the amount on behalf of the judgment-debtor or such person is obligated to pay the decretal amount due to several sorts of circumstances the decree-holder welcomes the payment. The best possible situation in which a person is obligated to pay is when his property is attached and his claim petition is rejected and to avert the attachment and resultant loss and hardship to him when he comes forward to wipe out the decree by payment to the decree-holder and when he seeks to have the satisfaction recorded he should not be foreclosed on the ground of maintainability of the application at his instance. Sub-clause (1) of Rule (2) obligates the decree-holder to certify payment or adjustment of the decretal amount. Sub-clause (2) provides that the judgment-debtor or surety also apart from the decree-holder indicated in Sub-rule (1) may bring to the notice of the Court the payment or adjustment of the decretal amount. Rule 2 does not prohibit or preclude any person other than the decree-holder, judgment-debtor or surety to apprise the Court regarding payment and record satisfaction of the decree. Further there is no rationale or purpose behind the rigid interpretation of enabling the judgment-debtor or surety alone to set in motion the proceeding for recording satisfaction of the decree. There is no prejudice if any person, whatever may be his concern seeks satisfaction of the decree on proof of payment of the decretal amount as provided in R. I.
4. In Panduranga Mudaliar v. Vythilinga Reddi, (1907) ILR 30 Madras 537(540) the purchaser of the equity of redemption set up an adjustment between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder. In the context of considering whether such application is maintainable the Madras High Court held as follows:
'If the word judgment-debtor; as used in Section 258, does not include the representative of the judgment-debtor, it would follow that such a representative is not entitled to apply for the certificate without which the adjustment cannot be regarded by the Court executing the decree and the appellant must fail on the ground that there was no adjustment which the Court could look at. We think, however, that the word judgment-debtor in Section 258 should be construed as including those who claim through him or in his right. To hold otherwise would lead to obvious hardships which we cannot think were contemplated.'
In Kasthuri v. Arunachalam, AIR 1917 Mad 739(2), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that if the whole amount due under a decree is paid into the Court, the decree becomes satisfied without any formal order of the Court recording; but the payment must be made either by judgment-debtor himself or on his behalf by recognised agent or by the pleader duly authorised But if the payment is made by the persons whose immoveable property had been sold in execution of a money decree it was held that such payment did not have the effect of satisfying the decree in the eye of law unless and until the decree-holder consented to receive the amount deposited in satisfaction of his decree. Therefore, the persons other than the judgment-debtor can pay the amount and have the satisfaction recorded provided the decree-holder agree to receive the amount in satisfaction of the decree.
5. The essence is whether the decree-holder agreed to receive the amount or received the amount in the modes recorded by Rule 1 and if such evidence is adduced there cannot be any objection to the maintainability of the application, When the payment is made and received by the decree-holder the question as to who filed the application for recording satisfaction recedes to the background. As already stated Order 21, Rule 1 and C.P.C. does not preclude the persons other than the judgment-debtor to pay the amount and seek for recording of the satisfaction of decree. The Court below is directed to consider whether the payment as alleged by the petitioner is in the manner provided under Clause (b) of R. 1.
6. The order of the Court below is set aside. C.R.P. allowed. No costs.