CR No. 3277 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3277 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.5.2011. M/s Gurdeep Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Kirpal Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner-decree holder has filed a suit for recovery and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. In execution petition filed by the petitioner, an objection petition was filed by the judgment debtor Kirpal Singh that the decree stood satisfied. Vide the impugned order dated 31.3.2011, the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor was allowed and the execution petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed being fully satisfied. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit had been filed by the petitioner firm through its partner Darshan Singh. The judgment debtor Kirpal Singh had alleged in the objection petition that he had paid the amount in dispute to partner Gian Singh. The said fact was not established by the judgment debtor and hence, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. CR No. 3277 of 2011 (O&M) -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that Gian Singh had admitted his signatures on receipt Ex. E-1 and affidavit Ex. E-2. Admittedly, as per the receipt Ex. E-1, the amount in question stood paid by the judgment debtor to Gian Singh, partner of the plaintiff firm. Gian Singh also executed an affidavit dated 16.3.2008 qua payment made to him. Admittedly, Gian Singh is a partner to the plaintiff firm. Since the amount in question had been paid by the judgment debtor to one of the partners of the plaintiff firm, the execution petition was liable to be dismissed being fully satisfied. The plea taken by Gian Singh that his signatures had been taken by the judgment debtor on the receipt by misguiding him, is liable to be rejected. It was not required to be explained to Gian Singh that the receipt was required to be produced in the court. Once Gian Singh had executed the receipt, then presumption arises that the same had been executed by him after accepting the amount mentioned therein. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 17, 2011 Gurpreet