ORDER 7.5.2010 — In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th September, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Bolangir in Civil Revision No.10 of 2007 confirming the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir in CMA No.29 of 2006 rejecting the petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code to drop Execution Case No.7 of 2005. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows : Petitioner is the judgment-debtor. Opposite party, who is the decree-holder, filed Money Suit No.23 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir for realiza¬tion of Rs.49,624/- from the present petitioner. In the execution case filed by the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code stating therein that he had paid the decretal amount outside the Court. Hence the decree was satisfied for which the execution case may be dropped. He stated in the said application that the son of the decree-holder who was the Manager of M/s. Janata Iron Store, Bolangir received the amount as per the instruction of the de¬cree-holder and signed in the money receipt on 19.4.2006 as the Manager of M/s. Janata Iron Store. The said money receipt had been filed before the executing Court. As the decretal amount had already been paid, the execution proceeding should be dropped. 3. Opposite party/decree-holder filed an objection to the said application denying the payment alleged to have been made to him or his son. He also stated that similar petition was also filed by the judgment-debtor which was rejected by the Court below directing the judgment-debtor to pay the amount in the Court itself. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. 4. In support of the contention of the judgment-debtor, he filed three documents which were marked exhibits-Ext.1 is the receipt showing payment of Rs.69,633/-, Ext.2 is the credit bill and Ext.3 is the certified copy of the deposition of P.W.2 in M.S. No.23 of 2001. He also examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness-Srikanta Jal as P.W.2. 4. In support of the contention of the judgment-debtor, he filed three documents which were marked exhibits-Ext.1 is the receipt showing payment of Rs.69,633/-, Ext.2 is the credit bill and Ext.3 is the certified copy of the deposition of P.W.2 in M.S. No.23 of 2001. He also examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness-Srikanta Jal as P.W.2. The decree-holder filed two docu¬ments which were marked as Exts.A and B. The letter-pad used by opposite party in the year 2006 was marked as Ext.A and blank letter-pad used by O.P. No.2 in respect of Raju Electricals was marked as Ext.B. Decree-holder examined himself as OPW No.2 and another witness Rajkishore Singh as OPW No.2. 5. Considering the documentary as well as the oral evi¬dence, the executing Court held that since the payment made outside the Court was not recognized as judgment-debtor had not satisfied such payment and the decree-holder denied to have re¬ceived such payment, payment had not been made and the Court was not satisfied about such payment made outside of the Court. Hence, execution proceeding could not be dropped. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the revision before the learned District Judge. The revisional Court did not interfere with the same as there was no merit in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgment-debtor filed a money receipt showing that the amount was received by the son of the opposite party on behalf of the decree-holder and in the said money receipt the son of the opposite party put his signature over the revenue stamp in presence of the witnesses and one such witness Srikanta Jala was also examined by the judgment-debtor. However, both the Courts below did not consider the said money receipt which was marked as Ext.1 showing payment of Rs.69,633/-. The said revenue stamped money receipt was granted by the son of the opposite party/de¬cree-holder on the instruction of his father. Therefore, such receipt should not be ignored totally by the Court below. He further submitted that the collection of money by an agent, pur¬porting to be on behalf of the principal, would, in law, be a collection of that amount by the principal. Therefore, such receipt should not be ignored totally by the Court below. He further submitted that the collection of money by an agent, pur¬porting to be on behalf of the principal, would, in law, be a collection of that amount by the principal. Since the son of the opposite party has already received that amount as an agent, as per Section 188 of the Contract Act, it amounts to collection by the principal and since the judgment-debtor has proved the said fact, the judgment-debtor has to prove that the said collection of money by the agent was in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the principal. As both the Courts below did not take into consideration the said facts, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he cited the decisions in the cases of Muthupalaniapa Chettiar v. Alagamai Achi and others reported in AIR 1961 Madras 438 and Union of India v. Motilal Kamalia and others reported in AIR 1962 Patna 384 wherein it has been held that where a principal gives an agent an express authority to do a particular act or class of acts on his behalf, the principal is bound as regards third per¬sons, by every act done by the agent which is so authorized, or which is necessary for the proper execution or such authority, even though the existence of such authority is unknown to the third person. But if any limitation is imposed by the principal on an agent, it would not be binding against third parties unless they are made aware of that. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party sub¬mitted that since the amount had not been paid in Court and the executing Court was not satisfied that the decretal amount had been paid to the decree-holder, the trial Court rightly directed that after recording satisfaction of payment of the decretal dues, the execution proceeding shall be dropped. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party sub¬mitted that since the amount had not been paid in Court and the executing Court was not satisfied that the decretal amount had been paid to the decree-holder, the trial Court rightly directed that after recording satisfaction of payment of the decretal dues, the execution proceeding shall be dropped. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the apex Court in the case of Padma Ben Banushali & another v. Yogendra Rathore & others re¬ported in AIR 2006 SC 2167 wherein the apex Court has held that the adjustment or payment out of Court which is not certified/recorded by the Court under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be recognized by the executing Court. The general provision under Section 47 of the Civil Proce¬dure Code has, therefore, to yield to that extent to the special provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which have been enacted to prevent a judgment-debtor from setting up false or cooked up pleas so as to prolong or delay the execution proceedings. In a situation like this, the only enquiry that the executing Court can do is to find out whether the plea taken on its face value, amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of decree, wholly or in part, and whether such adjustment or satis¬faction had the effect of extinguishing the decree to that ex¬tent. If the executing Court comes to the conclusion that the decree was adjusted wholly or in part but the compromise or adjustment or satisfaction was not recorded and/or certified by the Court, the executing Court would not recognize them and will proceed to execute the decree. He further submitted that in view of the said decision since the executing Court was not satisfied, it rightly proceeded with the execution proceeding. Therefore, the impugned orders need not be interfered with. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the fact that the petitioner/judgment-debtor had paid an amount of Rs.69,633/- on 19.4.2006 to the opposite party/decree-holder and the said amount had been received by the son on his behalf by signing on the revenue stamp, the Court below should have taken into consideration the said fact in view of Section 188 of the Indian Contract Act. The said section provides that an agent purporting to collect money on behalf of the principal amounts to collection by the principal. The principal can show that the collection of money by the agent was in his individual capacity. 9. Section 2(23) of the Indian Stamp Act defines “Receipt”. For better appreciation, the said Section 2(23) of the Indian Stamp Act is extracted below : “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context.- xxx xxx xxx (23) Receipt - “Receipt” includes any note, memorandum or writing- (a) whereby any money, or any bill or exchange, cheque or prom¬issory note is acknowledged to have been received, or (b) whereby any other moveable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or (c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, “the Act”) provides that every person capable of contracting, according to the law to which he is subject, may bind himself and be bound by the making, drawing, acceptance, endorsement, deliv¬ery and negotiation of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque. Section 27 of the Act is with regard to agency which provides that every person capable of binding himself or of being bound, as mentioned in Section 26, may so bind himself or be bound by a duly authorized agent acting in his name. Section 28 of the Act provides that an agent who signs his name to a promis¬sory note, bill of exchange or cheque without indicating thereon that he signs as agent, or that he does not intend thereby to incur personal responsibility, is liable personally on the in¬strument, except to those who induced him to sign upon the belief that the principal only would be held liable. The said section carries an exception to the general law of contract that the principal, though not disclosed on the instrument, may be proceed¬ed against if it is discovered later on that the agent had acted on his behalf. Chapter-XIII of the said Act provides Special Rules of Evidence. 11. The said section carries an exception to the general law of contract that the principal, though not disclosed on the instrument, may be proceed¬ed against if it is discovered later on that the agent had acted on his behalf. Chapter-XIII of the said Act provides Special Rules of Evidence. 11. For better appreciation Section 118 of the Act is extracted below : “118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.-Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made :- (a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferee was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) to (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) as to stamp.- that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course. - that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course; Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.” 12. In the present case, since the son of the decree-holder has received the money on the revenue stamp, the executing Court should have considered the same in view of the above provision of law, the presumption to be drawn from the said document. There¬fore, there is an error committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned order which is apparent on the face of the record. Hence, this Court sets aside the impugned orders and remands the matter to the executing Court to consider the case afresh in the light of the observations made in the above paragraphs. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.