1 n350-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice No. 350 of 2010 in Execution Application No.90 of 2010 in Arbitration Case No. 83 of 2003-04 M/s. Chawla Trading Company .. Plaintiff v/s. M/s. Krishnagiri Impex ..Respondent Mr.Lalit Jain i/b. Rakesh G. Jain for the Claimant. Mrs. Bharati Narichania i/b. M/s. Vibha Juris Consult for the Defendant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 1st February, 2011 P.C. : 1. This notice is issued under Order 21 Rule 22 of C.P.C. Affidavit in reply is filed and rejoinder is also filed. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. Decree dated 14.9.2000 was passed to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and odd amount. It is admitted by the claimants that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 29.10.2004. It is also case of the claimants that agreement was arrived at between claimant and the respondent that if additional 2 n350-10.sxw amount of Rs.1,15,000/- is paid on or before 10.11.2004 the decre will be treated as fully satisfied. It is the case of the claimants that the said amount was not paid on or before 10.11.2004. 3. The defendants have come out with the contention that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through broker Mr. Shailesh Vora . In support of this contention receipt purported to be issued by Mr.Vora dated 26.11.2004 is annexed at Exhibit 9. I have perused the receipt. The said receipt is regarding to certain bills raised by the said broker and for brokerage charges. If the payment was made to Mr. Vora, the broker for onward payment to the claimant, the language of the receipt would have been different. It is required to be noted that it was agreed between the claimant and the defendant that if Rs. 1,15,000/- are paid on or before 10.11.2004 entire matter would get settled. Even if the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is accounted still Rs. 15,000/- remain to be paid. To that extent there is no compliance of the agreement. 4. Learned Counsel for the defendant contended that after the agreement was arrived to settle the figure on or before 10.12.2004, 3 n350-10.sxw yet another agreement was arrived and it was agreed that the amount payable would be Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.1,15,000/-. The defendant claims that this was the oral agreement. In the affidavit in reply such plea is taken in para 9. Particulars of the date of the agreement, place where the agreement was entered into and who were the other persons present at the time of entering into agreement are not set out. Apart from this, if it was the case of the defendant that on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- the decree was to be marked as satisfied, the defendant would have immediately applied to this Court for marking the decree as fully satisfied. That has not been done. Some explanation was sought to be given by the learned Counsel for the defendant that she had incurred losses in business. This explanation cannot be accepted. If a party pays the amount towards full and final satisfaction of decreetal amount, in the normal course it would take steps to get the decree marked as satisfied. . Till today no application is made for marking of the decree as fully satisfied. All this goes to show that the defendant has not complied with the money decree. Since the defendant has not paid Rs.1,15,000/- on or before 10.11.2004, the agreement to put an end to the decree on receipt of Rs.2,15,000/- now cannot be enforced by the defendant. 4 n350-10.sxw As such the entire decree has now become executable. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decree has now become executable. In the facts and circumstances, now the notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of CPC is required to be granted as the plaintiff thought it fit to wait for a reasonable time to allow the defendant to make the payment. 6. Notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of CPC is made absolute. Execution to proceed. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]