AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhavan Nair, J.—I do not think that this is a case in which I should interfere u/s 115, C.P.C. The execution application of the petitioner was dismissed as he and his Pleader were absent. Then he filed an application for review. That also was dismissed by the District Munsif and it is that order that is the subject-matter of this revision.
The main argument of the petitioner has been directed to show that the District Munsif should not have considered the merits of an uncertified adjustment pleaded by the decree-holder in dealing with an execution application. In this case the finding of the District Munsif amounts to this: viz., that the petitioner in suppressing the agreement and asking for execution has been acting fraudulently. I have no doubt that in such circumstances the Court can examine the merits of an-uncertified adjustment when it is pleaded in bar to execution. Further, the Full Bench of this High Court in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 836: (1917) M.W.N. 44 has held that such adjustment can be pleaded by the judgment-debtors as an answer to execution. There is no question of jurisdiction in this case. I dismiss it with costs.