((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1210 OF 2005 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.206 OF 1999 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2748 OF 1995 Sheila Dyer Plaintiff versus M/s.Om Computers & others Defendants and Margaret Dias Applicant CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th April 2006 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for parties. Perused the Chamber Summons and the affidavit in support thereof. The Chamber Summons is taken out by defendant no.3 for the following reliefs:- a) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Orders to the effect that the Recovery Proceedings initiated against the Defendant No.3 are not maintainable, null and void; b) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Orders to the effect that the ((-2-)) decree in the above suit is fully satisfied against the Defendant No.3." 2. The only submission made in support of the plea that the decree passed in the above suit is fully satisfied against defendant no.3, is that the plaintiff-decree holder has executed an affidavit affirmed at Mumbai on 14th January 2000 wherein she has relinquished all her legal rights and does not wish to recover a sum of Rs.2.30 lakh from defendant no.3 as well as one Shri Kanitkar, who is defendant no.2. The defendant no.3 places reliance upon this affidavit and states that he will be entitled to the principal amount of Rs.2.30 lakh and interest thereon. 3. The learned counsel is unable to point out to me anything by which the judgement debtor - defendant no.3 can be said to be entitled to recover monies by executing a decree passed in favour of the decree holder - original plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit is filed against the defendants which includes defendant no.3. As to how he can recover monies under the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff from other defendants, is something which is not explained to me at all. It is inconceivable that the law permits ((-3-)) adjustment of this nature wherein the defendant would be given benefit under the money decree by the plaintiff decree holder. At the most, the decree holder may give up her right by assigning the decree or otherwise but she cannot possibly be heard to say that one of the defendants can recover monies instead of her under a decree which is passed in her favour and against defendant- judgement debtors. 4. That apart, the affidavit on which reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for defendant no.3, is disputed and the decree holder has now filed an affidavit opposing any reliefs being granted in the Chamber Summons. She has pointed out that such an attempt was made by mother of defendant no.3 earlier and that Chamber Summons was withdrawn. She has pointed out that taking advantage of her ill health an affidavit has been executed and neither she has taken a stand which is reflected therein nor has she signed the same. She has specifically denied execution of any such affidavit. In these circumstances and more particularly when there are other decrees which are pending execution against defendant no.3, it is not possible to uphold the plea that the decree is satisfied ((-4-)) and/or adjusted. The requirement contemplated by Order XXI, Rule 2 is not at all satisfied in this case. Chamber Summons is totally misconceived and frivolous. It is accordingly dismissed. Defendant no.3 is directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.1,500/-. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)