S.B. Civil First Execution Appeal No.4/2010 Vivek Mlpani and ors. Vs. Bajrang Lal and ors. Dated : 08.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for the appellants. *** Challenge in this Civil First Execution Appeal is to the order dated 19th May, 2006 whereby the Executing Court dismissed the plea of the appellants- decree-holders with regard to the adjustment of amount of Rs.4,67,000/- against the decreetal amount which they owed to the judgment-debtor. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the impugned order as also the relevant material on record, it is noticed that one Civil Suit bearing registration No.3628/1994 filed by the petitioners for the recovery of money was decreed by the High Court of Mumbai in its original jurisdiction for a sum of Rs.35,75,372.35/- in favour of the appellants-decree-holders and against the respondents. Thereafter execution of the decree was filed before the High Court of Bombay, but the said execution was transferred for execution under Order 21 Rule 6 of CPC with a transfer certificate, to the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 3. During the execution proceedings the appellants decree-holders filed an -2- application for seeking amendment in the execution petition on 4th April, 2006. They also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 2(1) of CPC to the effect that out of the said decreetal amount, an amount of Rs.4,67,000/- with interest may be left and deemed to have been paid to him by the judgment-debtor, as he owed this amount towards judgment-debtor. The learned Executing Court dismissed both the pleas of the appellants decree- holders on the ground that it was not permissible under law. The learned Executing Court also observed that the execution application was filed by the decree-holders themselves and they wanted the satisfaction of decree, which was for a sum of Rs.35,75,372.35/-. The impugned order of the Executing Court is found to be just and proper and suffers from no legal or factual infirmity. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not required to interfere with the finding of facts. The impugned order is also not found to be contrary to the material on record, hence, the writ petition being totally devoid of any substance and bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item no.7.