Case: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And Anr Vs. M/S. Atwal Rice And General Mills

had been raised by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code challenging the decree then it was necessary for the executing Court to deal with the objections and record its finding one way or other in accordance with law. Secondly, assuming that these objections were to be decided then also, in our opinion, none of them had any merit whatsoever and they simply deserved rejection at the outset. 30. Thirdly, all the objections referred above ought to have been raised by the respondents before the Arbitrator or/and Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Act but certainly none of them could be allowed to be raised in execution once the award became final and attained finality as decree of the Civil Court. 31. In other words, having regard to the nature of objections, it is clear that such objections were not capable of being tried in execution proceedings to challenge the award. It is for the reason that they were on facts and pertained to the merits of the controversy, which stood decided by the Arbitrator resulting in passing of an award. None of the objections were in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court affecting the root of the very passing of the decree. If the executing Court had probed these objections then it would have travelled behind the decree, which was not permissible in law. An inquiry into facts, which ought to have been done in a suit or in an appeal arising out of the suit or in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, cannot be held in execution proceedings in relation to such award/decree. 32. Fourthly, and apart from what is held above, by no stretch of imagination, the award/decree could be held fully satisfied on alleged making of the payment of Rs. 3,37,885/- by the respondents to the appellant. This factual finding to say the least is perverse to its extreme. 33. It is not in dispute that the awarded principal sum even without interest was for Rs. 10,24847.15. In these circumstances, we are at loss to understand as to how and on what basis, the executing Court could ever come to a conclusion that the entire money decree which was admittedly for more than Rs. 10 lacs could be held fully satisfied against making of so-called payment of Rs. 3,37,885/- by the respondents to the appellant assuming that such payment was held to had been made. 34. Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code prescribes the modes of paying money under the decree. Subclause( a) provides that the decreetal money has to be deposited in Court or by postal money order or through Bank. Clause(b) provides that amount, if paid out of court, then it has to be by postal money order or through Bank or by any mode where payment is evidenced in writing. If the payment is made under clause(b) then clause(c) prescribes the procedure as to how the money has to be paid and what details are required to be given by the judgment debtor in support of making payment. 35. Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code deals with the cases where the judgment debtor makes the payment of decreetal amount either full or part out of the Court to the decree holder. Sub-clause(1) empowers the decree holder to apply to the executing Court to get the amount received from the judgment debtor certified from the Court and it is only when the Court certifies the amount to have been paid, it can be adjusted against the decreetal sum. Clause(2) empowers the judgment debtor to apply to the executing Court and get the certification done by the Court of the amount paid by them to the decree holder after notice to the decree holder. Rule 2(A) provides that no payment made by the judgment debtor shall be adjusted unless he ensures compliance of sub clause (a) or (b) or (c). Rule 3 provides that if the Court does not certify the payment made by the judgment debtor then such payment shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree for the purpose of giving adjustment to the judgment debtor against the decretal amount. 36. Keeping in view the mandatory requirements of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 relating to payment of decretal dues made by the judgment debtor and applying the said provisions to the undisputed facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,37,885/- which the respondents claimed to have paid to the appellant towards the decretal sum and which found acceptance to the two Courts below could never have been regarded as the payment made by the respondents to the appellant in conformity with the requirements of either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 21. It is not in dispute that such payment was never certified by the Court as contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 21 at the instance of respondents or at the instance of the appellant. Indeed, there was neither any evidence to prove the factum of payment except one copy of the statement which also remained unproved nor any evidence was led to prove the certification done by the Court as required under Order 21 Rule 2 so as to recognize making of such payment by the respondents to the appellant. 37. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that firstly, the execution application filed by the appellant (decree holder) for execution of the award/decree dated 01.06.2001 was maintainable and it should have been so held; Secondly, no amount was paid by the respondents to the appellant pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the executing Court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 and lastly, all objections raised by the respondents under Section 47 of the Code against the award/decree are liable to be rejected as being wholly devoid of any merits. We, accordingly, hold so against the respondents.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.Coming to the facts of the case, we find that firstly, the award is under the Act; Secondly, the award was challenged under Section 34 by the respondents before the Additional District Judge but the challenge failed vide order dated 03.11.2012 of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar; Thirdly, the order dated 03.11.2012 attained finality because the matter was not pursued by the respondents in appeal to the High Court; Fourthly, the award, in consequence, also attained the finality by virtue of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act; Fifthly, the award was and continues to be binding on the appellant and the respondents; Sixthly, the award acquired the status of a decree of the civil court by virtue of Section 36 of the Act; Seventhly, the award has to be enforced for recovery of the awarded amount from the respondents like a decree of the civil court under the Code.It is aprinciple of law that the executing Court has to execute the decree as it is and it cannot go behind the decree. Likewise, the executing Court cannot hold any kind of factual inquiry which may have the effect of nullifying the decree itself but it can undertake limited inquiry regarding jurisdictional issues which goes to the root of the decree and has the effect of rendering the decreeWe are constrained to observe that the executing Court and the High Court either did not understand the controversy or if understood, miserably failed to decide the same in accordance with law. Indeed, both the orders clearly show the totalof mind by the two Courts because both the Courts neither set out the facts much less properly nor dealt the issues arising in the case and nor applied the principle of law which governs the controversy.Both the orders are, therefore, wholly perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. This we say for more than one reason as detailed by us hereinbelow.In the first place, none of the objections (nine) raised by the respondents were decided by the executing Court or/and the High Court. Indeed, they were not even referred to in the orders. If the objections had been raised by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code challenging the decree then it was necessary for the executing Court to deal with the objections and record its finding one way or other in accordance with law. Secondly, assuming that these objections were to be decided then also, in our opinion, none of them had any merit whatsoever and they simply deserved rejection at the outset.Thirdly, all the objections referred above ought to have been raised by the respondents before the Arbitrator or/and Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Act but certainly none of them could be allowed to be raised in execution once the award became final and attained finality as decree of the Civil Court.In other words, having regard to the nature of objections, it is clear that such objections were not capable of being tried in execution proceedings to challenge the award. It is for the reason that they were on facts and pertained to the merits of the controversy, which stood decided by the Arbitrator resulting in passing of an award. None of the objections were in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court affecting the root of the very passing of the decree. If the executing Court had probed these objections then it would have travelled behind the decree, which was not permissible in law. An inquiry into facts, which ought to have been done in a suit or in an appeal arising out of the suit or in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, cannot be held in execution proceedings in relation to such award/decree.Fourthly, and apart from what is held above, by no stretch of imagination, the award/decree could be held fully satisfied on alleged making of the payment of Rs. 3,37,885/by the respondents to the appellant. This factual finding to say the least is perverse to its extreme.It is not in dispute that the awarded principal sum even without interest was for Rs. 10,24847.15. In these circumstances, we are at loss to understand as to how and on what basis, the executing Court could ever come to a conclusion that the entire money decree which was admittedly for more than Rs. 10 lacs could be held fully satisfied against making ofpayment of Rs. 3,37,885/by the respondents to the appellant assuming that such payment was held to had been made.Keeping in view the mandatory requirements of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 relating to payment of decretal dues made by the judgment debtor and applying the said provisions to the undisputed facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,37,885/which the respondents claimed to have paid to the appellant towards the decretal sum and which found acceptance to the two Courts below could never have been regarded as the payment made by the respondents to the appellant in conformity with the requirements of either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 21. It is not in dispute that such payment was never certified by the Court as contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 21 at the instance of respondents or at the instance of the appellant. Indeed, there was neither any evidence to prove the factum of payment except one copy of the statement which also remained unproved nor any evidence was led to prove the certification done by the Court as required under Order 21 Rule 2 so as to recognize making of such payment by the respondents to the appellant.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that firstly, the execution application filed by the appellant (decree holder) for execution of the award/decree dated 01.06.2001 was maintainable and it should have been so held; Secondly, no amount was paid by the respondents to the appellant pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the executing Court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 and lastly, all objections raised by the respondents under Section 47 of the Code against the award/decree are liable to be rejected as being wholly devoid of any merits. We, accordingly, hold so against the respondents.