Sadhu Ram vs Wazir Chand Sham Lal

I called upon the learned advocate for the nonapplicants to show how the execution of this decree is not barred by lapse of time. Relying upon a

decision reported as A.IR. 1927 Oudh 7, he argues that there is no time fixed during which a decreeholder must certify payment or adjustment by

the Court. This may be conceded. It is, however, important to note that statutory provisions cast upon a decreeholder the duty to certify payment

made out of court or any adjustment made out of court to the court whose duty it is to execute the decree. It is very plain that it is not the duty of

any court to execute a decree which has become unexecutable whether by lapse of time or by any other reason. In the decision relied upon by the

learned advocate, the learned Judges has very carefully pointed out that at the time i.e. on 8th December 1924 when the decreeholders filed

certificate, ""The execution was clearly not barred by time."" I have no hesitation in holding that after the execution has become time barred no

certificate of the decreeholder can revive the decree. To hold the contrary would be preposterous. After the lapse of hundred years a decreeholder

merely by certifying payment in the court cannot subsequently execute his decree. In this very case of the Oudh Chief Court the learned Judges

have pointed out that ""The court is not permitted under the rule to question a certificate and in recording the certificate the court cannot be said, in

our opinion, to perform a judicial act.

The sum and substance of Mr. Chaman Lal's argument comes to no more than what is contained in the ratio decidendi of the lower court of

appeal. He says that it is hardly likely that a Mahajan moneylender living in the town of Ramnagar where there is a civil court established would

allow the decree to become time barred if no payments have been made to him. It cannot be denied that there is some force in this presumption.

But presumptions cannot avail in the presence of statutory mandatory provisions. The last clause of Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil

Procedure lays down that an uncertified or unregistered payment of adjustment of decree shall not be recognized by the court executing the

decree. Assuming that the decreeholders could certify or have recorded payment or adjustment of a decree made out of court when executing the

decree in court, in a case like the present one where on the face of it the execution of the decree has become barred by lapse of time but for the

dispute payment or payments it seems to me that payments have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. One would in the ordinary course

of events have expected entries in the account books of the nonapplicants. The reason given in the original decreeholder who assigned the decree

to the nonapplicants for there being no entries of receipts in the account books is one that cannot be easily accepted. I allow this application, set

aside the order of the lower courts and hold that the decree cannot be executed by reason of being barred by lapse of time. The applicants will get

cots of all the courts.