Ornest Export International Company vs ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

MR. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member-This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 731 of 2010 and 849 of 2010. R.P. No. 731 of 2010 arises out of the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow dated 8.1.2010 while R.P. No. 849 of 2010 arises out of the order dated 20.11.2009 of the same State Commission.

ONLY few facts need be noticed for deciding these revision petitions. In complaint case No. 19 of 2008 filed by the respondent, vide order dated 28.6.2008 the petitioners were directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,52,921 along with interest @ 8% p.a. Since the amount due was not paid, petitioner-Ornest Sehgal was convicted under Section 27, C.P. Act vide order dated 8.4.2009 by the District Forum. By the order dated 1.12.2009 the Forum issued arrest warrant against which the petitioner approached the State Commission. As may be seen from the aforesaid order dated 8.1.2010, the said petitioner alleged that he had liquidated the entire liability under the award under the receipt-cum-agreement dated 25.6.2009 which fact was denied by the respondent. State Commission after recording cogent reasons concluded that the said writing is a concocted document and, therefore, did not interfere with the said order.

PROVISION contained in Order 21 Rule 2, CPC deals with payment out of Court to the decree holder. Same being material is re-produced below: "2(1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or a decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment of adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment-debtor or any person who has become surety for the judgment-debtor also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless- (a) the payment is made in the manner provided in Rule 1; or (b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or (c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of, the decree-holder in his reply to the notice given under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, or before the Court. (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree."

THOUGH the provisions contained in C.P.C. are not applicable to Consumer Fora, still the principle underlying said Order XXI Rule 2 has to be made applicable on ground of public policy to the Fora. Admittedly, alleged payment under the receipt-cum-agreement dated 25.6.2009 has not been certified by the concerned District Forum/ State Commission. In addition to said receipt-cum-agreement being a concocted document as rightly held by the State Commission, the payment allegedly made thereunder is not to be recognized under law. Both the revision petitions which are without any merit, seem to have been filed with a view to gain time by the petitioner. Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. R.Ps. dismissed.