PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.versusM/S ATWAL RLCE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS

                            [2017]8 S.C.R.198


A     PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. &
                           ANR.
                                     v.
          MIS ATWAL RlCE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS
                          PARTNERS
B
                       (Civil Appeal No. 8943 of2017)
                               JULYll,2017
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.I
C         Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 35 and 36 -
  Dispute between the parties - Money award passed by the arbitrator.
  attained finality - Execution petition by the decree holder uls. 36
  for enforcement of the award against judgment debtor - Dismissal
  of. by the executing court upholding the objections raised by the
  judgment debtor against the award - Said order upheld by the High
D Court - On appeal, held: Both the courts-execution court and the
  High Court neither set out the facts much less properly nor dealt
   the issues arising in the case and nor applied the principle of law -
   Orders showed the total non-application of mind thus, wholly
  perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction - Courts below did not
E decide any of the objections raised by the judgment debtor. in fact,
   they were not even referred to in the orders - More so, having regard
   to the nature of objections, they were not capable of being tried in
   execution proceedings to challenge the award - Objections were
   not in relation to the jurisdiction of the court - inquiry into facts,
   could not be held in execution proceedings in relation to such
F award/decree - Thus, the objections rejected being wholly devoid
   of any merits - Further. no amount was paid by judgment debtor to
   the decree holder pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the
   executing court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the
   provisions of 0. 21 rr. 1 and 2 - Thus, the execution application
G flied by decree holder for execution of the award/decree was
   maintainable - Order passed by the High Court and the executing
   court set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 21 rr. 1 and 2.
          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- 0. 21 rr. I and 2 - Payment
    of decreta/ dues by the judgment debtor - Mandatory requirements -
    Stated.
H
                                     198
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL                   199
     RICE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS

       Execution petition - Execution of decree by execution A.
court - Held: Execution court has· to execute the decree as it is and
 it cannot go behind the decree - Also, executing court cannot hold
any kind of factual inquiry which may have the effect of nullifying
the decree itself but it can undertake limited inquhy regarding
jurisdictional issues.
                                                                      B
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1.1 The executing Court has to execute the decree
as it is and it cannot go behind the decree. Likewise, the executing
Court cannot hold any kind of factual inquiry which may have the
effect of nullifying the decree itself but it can undertake limited    c
inquiry regarding jurisdictional issues which goes to the root of
the decree and has the effect of rendering the decree nullity.
[Para 21] [206-A-B]
      1.2 The executing Court did not decide any of the objections
set out but confined its inquiry to one statement of accounts filed D
by the respondents, which according to them, was given to them
by the appellant. The executing Court, on perusal of the. account
statement, held that a sum of Rs.3,37,885/- was paid by the
respondents to the appellant on 29.08.2011 which, as per the
statement, was credited in appellant's account and hence such
payment having been made has resulted in fully satisfying the E
decree in question and, therefore, the respondents are not liable
to pay any amount towards decree in question. It is essentially
with this factual finding, the executing Court came to a conclusion
that the award/decree stood fully satisfied and hence no recovery
of any awarded amount can be made and, therefore, dismissed F
the appellant's execution application. The said finding of the
executing court was upheld by the High Court. [Paras 25, 261
[206-H; 207-A-C]
      1.3 The executing Court and the High Court either did not .
understand the controversy or if understood, miserab~y failed to G
decide the same in accordance with law. Indeed, both the orders
clearly show the total non-application of mind by the two Courts
because both the Courts neither set out the facts much less
properly nor dealt the issues arising in the case and nor applied
the principle of law which governs the controversy. Both the
orders are, therefore, wholly perverse, illegal and without H
200          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A jurisdiction. None of the objections (nine) raised by the
  respondents were decided by the executing Court or/and the High
  Court. Indeed, they were not even referred to in the orders. If
  the objections had been raised by the judgment debtor under
  Section 47 of the Code challenging the decree then it was
B necessary for the executing Court to deal with the objections
  and record its finding one way or other in accordance with law.
  Assuming that these objections were to be decided then also,
  none of them had any merit whatsoever and they simply deserved
  rejection at the outset. Further all the objections ought to have
  been raised by the respondents before the Arbitrator or/and
C Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Act but certainly
  none of them could be allowed to be raised in execution once the
  award became final and attained finality as decree of the Civil
  Court. [Paras 27-301 [208-E-H; 209-A-BI
          1.4 Having regard to the nature of objections, it is clear
 D that such objections were not capable of being tried in execution
   proceedings to challenge the award. It is for the reason that they
   were on facts and pertained to the merits of the controversy,
   which stood decided by the Arbitrator resulting in passing of an
   award. None of the objections were in relation to the jurisdiction
   of the Court affecting the root of the very passing of the decree.
 E If the executing Court had probed these objections then it would
   have travelled behind the decree, which was not permissible in
   law. An inquiry into facts, which ought to have been done in a suit
   or in an appeal arising out of the suit or in proceedings under
   Section 34 of the Act, cannot be held in execution proceedings in
 F relation to such award/decree. [Para 311 [209-C-EI
         1.5 By no stretch of imagination, the award/decree could
   be held fully satisfied on alleged making of the payment of
   Rs.3,37,885/- by the respondents to the appellant. This factual
   finding to say the least is perverse to its extreme. The awarded
 G principal sum even without interest was for Rs.10,24847.15. In
   these circumstances, it cannot be understood as to how and on
   what basis, the executing Court could ever come to a conclusion
   that the entire money decree which was admittedly for more than
   Rs.10 lacs could be held fully satisfied against making of so-called
   payment of Rs.3,37,885/- by the respondents to the appellant
 H
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL              201
     RICE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS

assuming that such payment was held to had been made. [Paras      A
32, 33) [209-E-G)
       1.6 Keeping in view the mandatory requirements of Order
21 Rules 1 and 2 CPC relating to payment of decretal dues made
by the judgment debtor and applying the said provisions to the
undisputed facts of this case, the sum of Rs.3,37,885/- which the B
respondents claimed to have paid to the appellant towards the
decretal sum and which found acceptance to the two courts below
could never have been regarded as the payment made by the
respondents to the appellant in conformity with the requirements
of either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 21. Such payment was never
certified by the court as contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 21 C
at the instance of respondents or at the instance of the appellant.
Indeed, there was neither any evidence to prove the factum of
payment except one copy of the statement which also remained
unproved nor any evidence was led to prove the certification done
by the Court as required under Order 21 Rule 2 so as to recognize D
making of such payment by the respondents to the appellant.
[Para 36] [210-E-G]
      1.7 The execution application filed by the appellant (decree
holder) for execution of the award/decree was maintainable and
it should have been so held; and that no amount was paid by the E
respondents to the appellant pursuant to the award/decree so as
to enable the executing court to record its full satisfaction in
accordance with the provisions of 0. 21 rr. 1 and 2 and all
objections raised by the respondents under Section 47 of the
Code against the award/decree are liable to be rejected as being
wholly devoid of any merits. Thus, it is held against the F
respondents. The impugned order and the order of the executing
court are set aside. As a consequence thereof, the executing Cou_rt
is directed to issue warrant for recovery of the entire awarded
decretal amount against the respondents after verifying and
calculating the decretal amount till date in terms of award/decree. G
[Paras 37-39) [210-H; 211-A-D)
       Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954
       SC 340 : (1955) SCR 117 - referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
[1955) SCR 117              referred to             Para 21        H
202            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8943
      of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2014 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3602 of
      2013.
B           Ashish Wad, Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Ms. Paromita Majumdar, Ms.
      Sukriti Jaggi (For Mis. J. S. Wad and Co.), Advs. for the Appellants
            Abhishek Vikas (For Mohit Kumar Shah), Adv. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C           ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted.
          2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
   17.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
   in Civil Revision No. 3602 of2013 whereby the High Court dismissed
   the revision petition filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the order
 D dated 03.11.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in
   Execution SR. No. 37of2010 by which the execution petition relating to
   arbitration award dated 01.06.2001 was dismissed.
            3. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in this
      appeal, few relevant facts need mention infra.
 E          4. The appellant is a State owned Corporation engaged in supply
      of civil commodities in the State of Punjab. Respondent No. I is a
      partnership firm whose partners are respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The firm is
      engaged in the business of running a rice Mill in Jalandhar.
          5. On 01.01.1996, the appellant and Respondent No.I entered
 F into an agreement. In terms of this agreement, the appellant was to give
   their paddy to the respondents, who were to process the paddy in their
   Rice Mill and the resultant rice produced after processing paddy were
   to be delivered to the Food Corporation oflndia (FCI) for and on behalf
   of the appellant by the respondents. Since the agreement was in relation
 G to processing of paddy and then supply of rice to public at large through
   FCI, the time was made the essence of the agreement so that the
   concerned departments would be able to supply the rice in time to public
   at large.
         6. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant delivered 62944
 H bags weighing 40790 quintals of fine variety of paddy and 90303 bags
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL                      203
. RICE & GENERAL MILLS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

weighing 58696.95 quintals ofIR 8 variety of paddy to the respondents     A
for processing and converting into Rice for being supplied to the FCI.
The respondents duly acknowledged the-receipt of paddy from the
appellant on 27.11.1995 and 06.12.1995.
      7. The respondents, however, could only process and deliver to
the FCI 27950.75 quintals of fine variety rice and 22955.32 quintals of B
IR- 8 variety ofrice till 30.06.1996. Thereafter the respondents could
deliver 710.00 quintals of fine variety ofrice and 14441.04.200 quintals
oflR -8 variety of rice in 1075 bags after 30.06.1996.                ·
       8. Since the respondents failed to process and deliver the full··
quantity of rice in terms of agreement to the FCI much less within the c
time framed, it caused money losses to the appellant in addition to
sustaining the damages due to non-delivery of the rice. According to the
appellant, since the respohdents committed breach cif the agreement
because they were not able to perform their part of the agreement, the
appellant became entitled, in terms of the agreement, to recover from
the respondents ( 1) 1Yi times economic cost of balance paddy, (2) the' D
cost of balance bags and sales tax @ 4.4% thereon, besides TDS on
income tax@ 2.34%, and (3) other recovery.·
       9. The agreement contained an arbitration clause for resolving
all disputes arising between the parties in relation to the agreement. The
appellant accordingly gave notice to the respondents requesting them E
for referring the disputes, which had arisen between them to the
Arbitrator. The respondents acceded to the appellant's request and
accordingly the disputes were referred to the sole Arbitrator-one Mr. 0.
P. Garg. The arbitrator embarked upon the reference made to him by
the parties. The parties filed their respective claims and adduced evidence F
in support of their stand.
       10. On 01.06.2001, the Arbitrator delivered a reasoned award.
The Arbitrator allowed the appellant's claim in part and accordingly passed
a money award for Rs.1024847.15 with interest payable at the rate of
21 % w.e.f. 01.01.1999 till realization in appellant's favour and against G
the respondents.
       11. The respondents, felt aggrieved of the award, filed an
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and questioned its legality and
correctness before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. By order H
    204            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 8 S.C.R.


    A dated 04.06.2009, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application
      and upheld the award. The respondents, as the records indicate. though
      claimed to have filed appeal in the High Court but did not pursue the
      appeal and hence the order dated 04.06.2009 of the Additional District
      Judge and, in consequence, the award dated 01.06.2001 became final
      and attained finality.
    B
             12. The respondents did not pay the awarded amount to the
      appellants and, therefore, the appellant filed Execution Petition No.3 7/
      2010 under Section 36 of the Act before the Additional District Judge,
      Jalandhar for enforcement of the award against the respondents. The
      respondents on being served filed reply to the execution application and
    c raised certain factual objections purporting to be under Section 47 of the
      Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
      The respondents also filed one application praying therein for a direction
      to the appellant to produce the statement of accounts and the transactions
      done pursuant to the agreement in question .
•   D         13. By order dated 03.11.2012, the Executing Court upheld the
       objections raised by the respondents and, in consequence, dismissed the
       appellant's execution application. It was held that the respondents having
       paid a sum of Rs.3,37,885/- towards decreetal amount to the appellant,
       the award/decree in question stood satisfied fully and hence the execution
     E application filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. It was,
       accordingly, dismissed.
                  14. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed revision being Civil Revision
          No. 3602 of2013 before the High Court. By impugned order, the High
          Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the Executing Court.
     F    It is against this order, the appellant(claimant) has filed this appeal by
          way of special leave before this Court.
                15. Heard Mr. Ashish Wad, learned counsel for the appellant and
          Mr. Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.
                 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
     G    of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and set
          aside the impugned order.
                17. Sections 35 and Section 36 of the Act as it stood at the relevant
          time are relevant for this appeal. It reads as under :

     H
  PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL                           205
   RICE & GENERAL MILLS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         "35. Finality of arbitral awards.                                      A
         Subject to this Part an arbitral award shall be final and
         binding on the parties and persons claiming under them
         respectively.
         36. Enforcement - Where the time for making an
         application. to set aside the arbitral award under Section             B
         34 has expired, or such application having been made, it
         has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the
         Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same
         manner as if it were a decree of the Court."
         18. Section 35 gives finality to every arbitral award and makes C
 the award.binding on the parties and all persons claiming under them. So
  far as Section 36 is concerned, it deals with execution of the award .. It
  says that once the Court dismisses the application filed under Section 34
  of the Act or if no such application is made and time has expired for
  making such application, the award shall be enforced as if it is a decree D
· of the Court and the enforcement of the award shall be under the Code.
         19. In other words, the arbitral award has been given the status
  of a decree of the Civil Court and, therefore, it is enforced like a decree
  of the Civil Court by applying the provisions of Order 21 of the Code and
  all other provisions, which deal with the execution of the decree of the      E
· Civil Court.
        20. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that firstly, the award
 is under the Act; Secondly, the award was challenged under Section 34
 by the respondents before the Additional District Judge but the challenge
 failed vide order dated 03.11.2012 of the Additional District Judge, F
 Jalandhar; Thirdly, the order dated 03.11.2012 attained finality because
 the matter was not pursued by the respondents in appeal to the High
 Court; Fourthly, the award, in consequence, also attained the finality by
 virtue of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act; Fifthly, the award was and
 continues to be binding on the appellant and the respondents; Sixth! y,
 the award acquired the status ofa decree of the civil court by virtue ·of G
 Section 36 of the Act; Seventhly, the award has to be enforced for
 recovery of the awarded amount from the respondents like a decree of
 the civil court under the Code.

                                                                                H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           21. It is a well-settled principle of law that the executing Court
      has to execute the decree as it is and it cannot go behind the decree.
      Likewise, the executing Court cannot hold any kind of factual inquiry
      which may have the effect of nullifying the decree itself but it can
      undertake limited inquiry regarding jurisdictional issues which goes to
      the root of the decree and has the effect of rendering the decree nullity
B
      (see- Kiran Singh & Ors. vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors., A!Rl 954 SC
      340).
             22. Let us now see the nature of the objections raised by the
      respondents in execution proceedings with a view to find out as to whether
      they or anyone out of them were legally sustainable and which, according
c     to the respondents, resulted in fully satisfying the award/decree in their
      favour and rightly found acceptance by the Courts below for so holding.
         23. The respondents in their application filed under Section 47 of
  the Code contended that firstly, the award being vague, it is incapable of
  execution for recovering any sum awarded therein from the respondents;
D Secondly, the Arbitrator has failed to specify the rates at which the interest
  were to be charged; Thirdly, the Arbitrator did not mention the words
  "per annum" to qualify the rate of interest, i.e.,21 % awarded; Fourthly,
  the Arbitrator awarded simple interest whereas the appellant had claimed
  compound interest which is not permissible; Fifthly, the Arbitrator was
E not competent to award pendent lite and future interest; Sixthly,
  mandatory consent of the Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation
  was not obtained by the Arbitrator for awarding interest at the rate of
  21 %; Seventhly, the calculations made by the appellant in their execution
   application is wrong being excessive in nature; Eighthly, no notice of
  execution application was served on the respondents because the
F application was filed beyond two years from the date of award; Ninthly,
   the execution application is not maintainable because the respondents
   have filed appeal before the High Court against the order rejecting their
   application under Section 34 of the Act.
          24. The respondents (judgment debtors) also filed one application
 G seeking direction against the appellant to produce the entire record of
   the case including the accounts relating to the transactions done pursuant
   to the agreement in question.
            25. It is pertinent to mention here that the executing Court did not
      decide any of the objections (nine) set out above but confined its inquiry
 H
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. M/S ATWAL                        207
  RICE & GENERAL MILLS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

to one statement of accounts filed by the respondents, which according A
to them, was given to them by the appellant. The executing Court, on
perusal of the account statement, held that a sum of Rs.3,37,885/- was
paid by the respondents to the appellant on 29.08.2011 which, as per the
statement, was credited in appellant's account and hence such payment
having been made has resulted in fully satisfying the decree in question B
and, therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any amount towards
decree in question. It is essentially with this factual finding, the executing
Court came to a conclusion that the award/decree stood fully satisfied
and hence no recovery of any awarded amount can be made and,
therefore, dismissed the appellant's execution application.
       26. It is apposite to reproduce the finding of the executing Court   C
hereinbelow because it is this finding which was upheld by the High
Court by impugned order giving rise to filing of this appeal by special
leave.
        "8. I have thoroughly considered the contentions of the
        learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through          D
        the documents as referred to by the learned counsel for
        both the parties. It is clear that statement of account was
        supplied by the decree holder department itself to the
        judgment debtor, copy of which has been placed on file
        and even it is not denied by the decree holder. This                E
        statement of account dated 29.08.2011 shows that as on
        29.08.2011, a sum of Rs.3,37,885/- was outstanding to be
        paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder as per
        this statement of account supplied by the decree holder.
        Nor corresponding to the other document, i.e., certificate
        issued by Punjab National Bank, said amount of                      F
        Rs.3,37,885/- was paid by the judgment debtor and was
        credited in the account of the decree holder Mis Punjab
        State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jalandhar. The
        plea of the learned counsel for the decree holder that the
        other statement of account, which shows that a sum of               G
        Rs.8,86,248/- is to be repaid may be considered, is not
         acceptable for the reason that the statement of account
         supplied by the decree holder department itself shows that
         the judgment debtor was given said statement of account
         on 29.8.2011 and this statement of account is admitted to
                                                                            H
208            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A            have been issued by the decree holder itself. The
             statement of account as relied upon by the counsel for the
             decree holder does not mention any date. More so, it is
             not justified by the decree holder as to how the amount of
             Rs.8,86,248/- has swollen to the amount of Rs.3495,886.15
             paise regarding which the present execution is filed. On
B
             the other hand, the statement of account dated 29.8.2011
             shows that a sum of Rs.3,37 ,885/- was found to be due
             against the judgment debtor, which was paid by the
             judgment debtor and deposited in the account of the
             decree holder and this fact is clear from the certificate
 c           given by the concerned bank. Hence, considering all these
             documents, it is clear that whatever money was due to be
             paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder as per
             statement of account supplied by the decree holder itself,
             has been paid by the judgment debtor and as such award
             regarding which the present execution has been filed
D
             stands fully satisfied. Resultantly, objections filed by the
             judgment debtor are accepted and the execution petition
             stands dismissed. Whatever property belonging to the
             judgment debtor, which has been attached in the present
             execution is ordered to be released henceforth. File be
 E           consigned to the record room."
             27. We are constrained to observe that the executing Court and
      the High Court either did not understand the controversy or ifunderstood,
      miserably failed to decide the same in accordance with law. Indeed,
      both the orders clearly show the total non-application of mind by the two
 F    Courts because both the Courts neither set out the facts much less
      properly nor dealt the issues arising in the case and nor applied the
      principle of law which governs the controversy.
         28. Both the orders are, therefore, wholly perverse, illegal and
   without jurisdiction. This we say for more than one reason as detailed by
 G us hereinbelow.
         29. In the first place, none of the objections (nine) raised by the
   respondents were decided by the executing Court or/and the High Court.
   Indeed, they were not even referred to in the orders. If the objections
   had been raised by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code
 H challenging the decree then it was necessary for the executing Court to
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL                            209
  RICE & GENERAL MILLS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

deal with the objections and record its finding one way or other in A
accordance with law. Secondly, assuming that these objections were .to
be decided then also, in our opinion, none of them had any merit
whatsoever and they simply deserved rejection at the outset.
       30. Thirdly, all the objections referred above ought to have been
raised by the respondents before the Arbitrator or/and Additional District B
Judge under Section 34 of the Act but certainly none of them could be
allowed to be raised in execution once the award became final and attained
finality as decree of the Civil Court.
       31. In other words, having regard to the nature of objections, it is
clear that such objections were not capable of being tried in execution c
proceedings to challenge the award. It is for the reason that they were
on facts and pertained to the merits of the controversy, which stood
decided by the Arbitrator resulting in passing of an award. None of the
objections were in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court affecting the
root of the very passing of the decree. If the executing Court had probed
these objections then it would have travelled behind the decree, which D
was not permissible in law. An inquiry into facts, which ought to have
been done in a suit or in an appeal arising out of the suit or in proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act, cannot be held in execution proceedings in
relation to such award/decree.
      32. Fourthly, and apart from what is held above, by no stretch of E
imagination, the award/decree could be held fully satisfied on alleged
making of the payment of Rs.3,37,885/- by the respondents to the
appellant. This factual finding to say the least is perverse to its extreme.
         33. It is not in dispute that the awarded principal sum even without
  interest was for Rs.10,24847.15. In these circumstances, we are at loss       F
  to understand as to how and on what basis, the executing Court could
  ever come to a conclusion that the entire money decree which was
· admittedly for more than Rs. I0 lacs could be held fully satisfied against
  making of so-called payment of Rs.3,37,885/- by the respondents to the
  appellant assuming that such payment was held to had been made.               G
       34. Order 21 Rule I of the Code prescribes the modes of paying
money under the decree. Sub- clause(a) provides that the decreetal money
has to be deposited in Court or by postal money order or through Bank.
Clause(b) provides that amount, if paid out of court, then it has to be by
postal money order or through Bank or by any mode where payment is H
210            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A evidenced in writing. If the payment is made under clause(b) then
  clause(c) prescribes the procedure as to how the money has to be paid
  and what details are required to be given by the judgment debtor in
  support of making payment.
           35. Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code deals with the cases where the
 B judgment debtor makes the payment of decreetal amount either full or
   part out of the Court to the decree holder. Sub-clause(!) empowers the
   decree holder to apply to the executing Court to get the amount received
   from the judgment debtor certified from the Court and it is only when
   the Court certifies the amount to have been paid, it can be adjusted
   against the decreetal sum. Clause(2) empowers the judgment debtor to
 c apply to the executing Court and get the certification done by the Court
   of the amount paid by them to the decree holder after notice to the
   decree holder. Rule 2(A) provides that no payment made by the judgment
   debtor shall be adjusted unless he ensures compliance of sub clause (a)
    or (b) or (c). Rule 3 provides that if the Court does not certify the payment
 D made by the judgment debtor then such payment shall not be recognized
    by any Court executing the decree for the purpose of giving adjustment
    to the judgment debtor against the decretal amount.
          36. Keeping in view the mandatory requirements of Order 21 Rules
   1 and 2 relating to payment of decretal dues made by the judgment
 E debtor and applying the said provisions to the undisputed facts of this
   case, we have no hesitation in holding that the sum of Rs.3,37,885/-
   which the respondents claimed to have paid to the appellant towards the
   decretal sum and which found acceptance to the two Courts below could
   never have been regarded as the payment made by the respondents to
   the appellant in conformity with the requirements of either Rule 1 or
 F Rule 2 of Order 21. It is not in dispute that such payment was never
   certified by the Court as contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 21 at the
   instance ofrespondents or at the instance of the appellant. Indeed, there
   was neither any evidence to prove the factum of payment except one
   copy of the statement which also remained unproved nor any evidence
 G was led to prove the certification done by the Court as required under
   Order 21 Rule 2 so as to recognize making of such payment by the
   respondents to the appellant.
          37. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that firstly, the
   execution application filed by the appellant (decree holder) for execution
 H of the award/decree dated 01.06.2001 was maintainable and it should
 PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL                         211
  RICE & GENERAL MILLS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

have been so held; Secondly, no amount was paid by the respondents to A
the appellant pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the executing
Court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of
Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 and lastly, all objections raised by the respondents
under Section 47 of the Code against the award/decree are liable to be
rejected as being wholly devoid of any merits. We, accordingly, hold so B
against the respondents.
       38. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed with cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-payable by the respondents
to the appellant. The impugned order and the order of the executing
Court dated 03.11.2012 are set aside.
                                                                             c
       39. As a consequence thereof, the executing Court is directed to
issue warrant for recovery of the entire awarded decretal amount against
the respondents after verifying and calculating the decretal amount till
date in terms of award/decree.
        40. Let this be done within one month.                               D


Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal allowed.