Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 636 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal Ex-Liquidator of Jamiatpura Dheru, Co-operative Joint Framing Society Ltd. v. Jamiatpura Co-operative Joint Framing Society Ltd.

2002-07-04

AMAR DUTT

body2002
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - In an execution application filed by the Jamiatpura Co- operative Joint Fanning Society Ltd., a sum of Rs. 8171.45 was sought to be recovered on the basis of a certificate issued under Section 63(a) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The execution application was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds, all of which need not be adverted to in this judgment. The objections were dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur. Sohan Lal, Judgment-debtor has come up in revision to assail the aforesaid order on various grounds. 2. During the course of arguments, Mr. Ravinder Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, confined the challenge only to one ground, namely, that the executing Court has erred in law when it authorised the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8171.45. A perusal of the certificate issued under Section 63(a) of the Act indicates that the award passed against the petitioner was confined to the recovery Rs. 3750/- and no order regarding recovery of interest thereon had been passed. 3. I have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel and on perusal thereof, it is evident that the certificate under Section 63(a) of the Act, on the basis of which execution proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, shows that the recovery of only Rs. 3750/- has been ordered and there is nothing in the certificate from which it could be inferred that the amount so decreed was to be recovered alongwith interest and costs of litigation. Since the certificate, which become executable as a decree of the Civil Court, confines the relief given to the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 3750/- only, the respondent was entitled to recover the amount contained in the certificate alone. As a matter of fact there is also nothing in the impugned order from which it may be inferred that the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 8171.45. 4. With this declaration that the amount recoverable by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 3,750/- the revision petition has to be allowed and ordered accordingly. Revision allowed.