2021 PLRonline 1220

(2021-2)202 PLR 001 (IJ) (Ker.) = 2021 PLRonline 1220

HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Present: Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice C.S.Dias.

NHANDADI PAVITHRAN -Petitioner,

versus

PRASEETHA C.V. - Respondent.

OP (FC).No.479 OF 2019

12.02.2021

(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XXI Rule 2 - Settlement  - Any mode of satisfaction of the decree will have to be certified in a manner indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC - In the absence of any certification of the satisfaction of the decree as indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC, it is not open for the judgment debtor to object the execution of the decree stating that subsequent to the decree, the parties have settled the dispute.

(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XXI Rule 2 -  Execution filed to recover past maintenance payable to the wife -  Husband’s objection that after the decree,  an agreement has been executed between the judgment debtor and the decree holder and the decree holder was permitted to reside along with the judgment debtor and therefore, the decree is inexecutable - Execution Court overruled the objection - If the parties have settled their differences and executed agreement, satisfaction of the decree has to be certified in the manner indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -  In the absence of any certification of the satisfaction of the decree in a manner laid down under the law, the judgment debtor cannot object the execution of the decree pointing out the settlement between the parties - Order upheld.

 Against The Order/Judgment In Op 460/2014 Of Family Court, Thalassery

Shri.R.Parthasarathy, Sri.Rajesh V.Nair, for petitioner. Sri.P.P.Ramachandran, for respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J - The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No.24 of 2019 in O.P. No.460 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. The above original petition was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) towards past maintenance payable to the wife. The petitioner is the husband. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner – judgment debtor raised an objection. According to him, after the decree,  an agreement has been executed between the judgment debtor and the decree holder and the decree holder was permitted to reside along with the judgment debtor and therefore, the decree is inexecutable.

2.The Execution Court overruled the objection and passed the impugned order. Challenging this,  the original petition was filed before this Court.

3.The Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree. If the parties have settled their differences and executed agreement, satisfaction of the decree has to be certified in the manner indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the absence of any certification of the satisfaction of the decree in a manner laid down under the law, the judgment debtor cannot object the execution of the decree pointing out the settlement between the parties. The Apex Court and this Court in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373], Padma Ben Banushali and another v. Yogendra Rathore and others [(2006) 12 SCC 138], Lakshmi Narayanan v. S.S Pandian [(2000)7 SCC 240], V.Ponnappan v. Vijayan [1991 (1) KLJ 207] and Padmanabha Pillai v. Viswambaran [AIR 1987 Ker. 98] held that any mode of satisfaction of the decree will have to be certified in a manner indicated under Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC.

4.In the absence of any certification of the satisfaction of the decree as indicated under Order

XXI Rule 2 of CPC, it is not open for the judgment debtor to object the execution of the decree stating that subsequent to the decree, the parties have settled the dispute.

We do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Execution Court, in overruling the objection. The original petition fails,  accordingly, dismissed.

SS                                                                         -                            Petition Dismissed