Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 March, 2016
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13282 of 2016
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by Additional District Judge exercising powers of the Motor Accident Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 8/74 of 2015, Santosh Kumar vs. Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
The record of the petition reveals that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was allowed and an award of Rs. 45,000/- with 7% interest w.e.f. 15.07.2009 till its payment was passed against Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
The petitioner has applied for the execution of the said award, but the Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the award has to be executed by the courts at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) where the judgment debtor is based. The tribunal, accordingly permitted the petitioner to take back the papers and to apply for execution before the appropriate court within a period of two months.
The application for execution of award or decree according to Order 21 Rule 10 CPC has to be moved before the court which has passed the decree or to the court to which it has been sent for execution.
Rule 5 of Order 21 CPC provides that where a decree is to be sent for execution to another court, the court which passed such decree shall send it directly to such court whether it is situate within the same State or outside meaning thereby that the court passing the decree and to whom application for execution is moved is not supposed to return the documents for presentation before another court for the execution of the decree rather the said court is obliged to sent them directly to such other court for execution. The decree shall then be executed by the court to which it is sent unless it is transferred to some subordinate court of competent jurisdiction as if it was decree passed by it.
A reading of the above provisions for the execution of the decree it is apparent that it is the duty of the court which has passed the decree and before whom the application for execution is moved to directly send the same for execution if it feels that the decree has to be executed by some other court. The court is not supposed to return the documents to the decree holder for presenting it to another court or the competent court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.12.2015 in so far it directs for return of the documents to the petitioner for presentation before the other court is not inconsonance with the Rule 5 of Order 21 CPC.
Accordingly, the aforesaid order to the above extent is modified and the Tribunal is directed to send the documents directly to the court at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) for the execution of the award/ the decree in question instead of returning the same to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Order Date :- 31.3.2016
v.k.updh.
