JUDGMENT : V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral):-- Ex.P. No. 40/2011, EA (OS) 543/2014 (application on behalf of the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 64 read alongwith Section 151 of CPC) & EA(OS) 303/2015 (application on behalf of the judgement debtor under Order 21 Rule 55 read with Section 151 of CPC for removal of attachment) 1. The present execution petition has been filed seeking execution of the Award dated September 08, 2010. This Court had vide its order dated November 08, 2013 issued warrant of attachment vis-a-vis property No. A- 211, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Thereafter the decree holder has filed EA(OS) 543/2014 for effecting the sale of aforesaid property. This Court on September 26, 2014 directed proclamation of sale to be issued vis-a-vis the said property. The sale of the said property was to be effected by public auction. The Registrar (Original) has issued the sale proclamation on March 16, 2015 in terms of the following schedule:- S. No. Date & Time 1. Date of publication of proclamation in English Newspaper “Statesman” & in Hindi “Dainik Jagran”. On or before 23.04.2015 2. Proclamation to be displayed on the notice board of the District Court as well as Delhi High Court. On or before 23.04.2015 3. Proclamation be also made at the property in question at the conspicuous place in the presence of witnesses of locality and by beat of drums. On or before 23.04.2015 between 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM 4. Date of Sale (by public auction by Court Auctioneer) 06.05.2015 between 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM 5. The date of return of proclamation On or before 13.05.2015 6. Filing of report On or before 20.05.2015 2. After the order was passed by the Registrar (Original) issuing sale proclamation, the judgment debtor has filed an application being EA(OS) 303/2015 under Order 21 Rule 55 read with Section 151 CPC for removal of attachment on the property No. A-211, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. 3. The said application is premised on the fact that the entire decree has been satisfied. The judgment debtor has also averred in the application that it had paid between May 03, 2013 to January 20, 2015 an amount of Rs. 10,90,017/- and an amount of Rs. 30,16,816/- to the judgment debtor which included a TDS amount of Rs. 3,01,681/-. 4. The said application is premised on the fact that the entire decree has been satisfied. The judgment debtor has also averred in the application that it had paid between May 03, 2013 to January 20, 2015 an amount of Rs. 10,90,017/- and an amount of Rs. 30,16,816/- to the judgment debtor which included a TDS amount of Rs. 3,01,681/-. 4. This Court had on April 15, 2015 recorded the factum of receipt in the following manner: 1. Cheque No. 556405 dated 13.04.2015 issued on Indian Overseas Bank 2. Cheque No. 500899 dated 13.04.2015 issued on ICICI Bank. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder has submitted that an error has crept in the order dated April 15, 2015 inasmuch the payment has been made through two demand drafts; (1) Rs. 27,15,134/- vide draft No. 96556407 dated March 25, 2015 of Indian Overseas Bank, Darya Ganj, Delhi and (2) D.D. No. 500899 dated April 13, 2015 of ICICI Bank, Branch Code:716 for an amount of Rs. 9,81,015 totalling to Rs. 36,96,149/-. The amount is after deduction of 10% as TDS on April 13, 2015 in settlement of the awarded amount of Rs. 41,06,883/-. He states that the aforesaid aspect has been clarified in the affidavit filed by the decree holder pursuant to the order of this Court dated April 15, 2015. 6. The affidavit filed on April 15, 2015 vide filing No. 191631 is not on record. The learned counsel for decree holder has handed over to me a photocopy of the said affidavit. The same has been taken on record. The Registry to upload the said affidavit on the computer. 7. The Decree Holder has also stated that it has been decided to accept the demand drafts totalling to Rs. 36,96,149/- in full and final satisfaction of the awarded/decretal amount of Rs. 41,06,883/-. 8. In view of this stand of the decree holder, the learned counsel for the decree holder concedes that execution petition has become infructuous. 9. There is yet another issue which needs to be decided is the claim of judgment debtor that the amount of Rs. 10,90,017/- need to be adjusted/refunded back to the judgment debtor as the said amount was in satisfaction of the decree/award dated September 08, 2010. This claim of the judgment debtor has been contested by the learned counsel for the decree holder. 10,90,017/- need to be adjusted/refunded back to the judgment debtor as the said amount was in satisfaction of the decree/award dated September 08, 2010. This claim of the judgment debtor has been contested by the learned counsel for the decree holder. He states that on earlier occasions also the decree holder had raised such pleas which have not been accepted by this Court. He would further state that the amount of Rs. 10,90,017/- was paid for the eastern portion of the property and cannot be adjusted with the western portion of the property with which the execution is related to. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I note that in EA(OS) 303/2015 the judgment debtor has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To remove the property bearing bearing A-211, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I from the attachment; (ii) Direct to withdraw the on going proceeding towards of auction sale of the said property; (iii) Close the execution petition as the decree has been satisfied; (iv) Pass any other order/direction in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 11. A perusal of the reliefs would reveal that the judgment debtor has not even prayed for the adjustment of Rs. 10,90,017/- against the decretal amount. Such a claim cannot be even considered. 12. Further, I note from the documents annexed along with the application does not show that the payments made by the judgment debtor were in satisfaction of the award dated September 08, 2010. Suffice to state, a procedure has been laid down under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC for making payment in satisfaction of a decree. There is nothing on record to suggest that the payments so made as referred to by the judgment debtor in this application were against the decree/award dated September 08, 2010. Moreover, similar pleas were rejected vide order dated July 01, 2013 and order dated August 05, 2014. The claim of the judgment debtor for adjustment/refund is liable to be rejected. 13. As the decree holder has filed an affidavit stating that the decree/award has been satisfied, the Ex.P. 40/2011 has become infructuous. Accordingly, the order of attachment dated November 08, 2013 and sale proclamation issued by the Registrar (Original) on March 16, 2015 are recalled. 14. EA(OS) 543/2014 & 303/2015 are disposed as being infructuous.