Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Imamuddin vs Jagdish Prasad on 24 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50550]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9/2016
Imamuddin S/o Shri Bazi Ahmed Khan, aged about 74 years,
Resident of House No.67 E, Majdoor Colony, Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Pitamber Joshi, Resident of 347B,
Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Order reserved on : 24/09/2025
Order pronounced on : 24/11/2025
1. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the
respondent-decree holder. Considering the nature of the
controversy involved and the fact that the matter pertains to
execution proceedings, this Court proceeds to decide the revision
petition after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and
examining the record.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC has
been preferred against the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Bhilwara, in Civil Misc.
Case No.36/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner
under Order XXI Rule 2(2) read with Section 47 CPC seeking
certification of satisfaction of decree was dismissed.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50550] (2 of 6) [CR-9/2016]
3. The respondent-decree holder instituted a suit for recovery of
Rs.30,000/- as principal and Rs.16,200/- as interest, based on a
promissory note, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara
on 08.03.2001. The petitioner-judgment debtor was served,
entered appearance through counsel, but on 23.11.2001 no
instructions were furnished. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex
parte and came to be decreed on 22.03.2002.
4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order IX
Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, which came to be dismissed
on 13.09.2012 on the ground of limitation, holding also that the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not disclose
sufficient cause.
5. During pendency of the execution proceedings (Execution
Case No.37/2002), the decretal amount had accumulated to
Rs.1,07,966/- due to interest being calculated @ 18% per annum
from 30.10.1998. As pleaded, the petitioner's wife was suffering
from cancer, leading to severe personal difficulties. Under pressure
of execution proceedings, the petitioner approached the decree
holder and, on 02.10.2012, paid the entire sum of Rs.1,07,966/-
in full satisfaction of the decree. A receipt acknowledging this
payment was executed by the decree holder. The petitioner
thereafter sent the said receipt along with his affidavit to the
executing court by post for verification.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50550] (3 of 6) [CR-9/2016]
6. Since the decree holder failed to certify the receipt of
payment, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule
2(2) read with Section 47 CPC on 01.08.2013 seeking certification
of the out-of-court payment and consequential dismissal of the
execution case.
7. The decree holder denied the payment and disputed the
genuineness of the receipt. He alleged that the application was
moved only to delay execution. The parties led both oral and
documentary evidence. Vide order dated 02.11.2015, the trial
court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner failed to
prove payment made outside the court, and also that the compact
disc (CD) was not properly proved under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act. The court further opined that there was no
justification for making an out-of-court payment, and
consequently refused to certify the same.
8. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the trial court misdirected itself in law and ignored vital
evidence. Under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC, once the judgment debtor
asserts payment and the decree holder denies it, the court must
adjudicate whether such payment was in fact made. The petitioner
had produced the original receipt duly signed by the decree
holder; therefore, the trial court's finding that the payment was
not proved is perverse.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50550] (4 of 6) [CR-9/2016]
9. It was further argued that the trial court relied upon an earlier
order dated 17.05.2012 relating to a completely different
controversy concerning an alleged payment of Rs.30,000/- prior to
institution of the suit. This finding had no nexus with the present
issue about payment of Rs.1,07,966/- on 02.10.2012.
10. Counsel submits that the petitioner's circumstances, viz. his
wife's serious illness and his requirement to remain out of station
on the court date due to ongoing treatment, explained why
payment was made outside the court. There was no reason to
discard his testimony or that of A.W.2 Aneesh Bagwan, who had
accompanied him. The trial court erred in rejecting the CD on
hyper-technical grounds despite the supporting oral evidence.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely
examined the record.
12. The decree holder Jagdish, examined as N.A.W.1, admitted in
cross-examination that the signatures appearing on Ex.1 (the
receipt dated 02.10.2012) were indeed his. The said document
expressly records that the petitioner paid Rs.1,07,966/- and that
nothing remained due thereafter.
13. The petitioner, examined as A.W.1, fully supported the
payment and explained the circumstances leading to the out-of-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50550] (5 of 6) [CR-9/2016]
court transaction. His version finds consistent corroboration from
A.W.2, who accompanied him during the payment and also spoke
about the preparation of the CD (Ex.2). No effective rebuttal
evidence was adduced by the decree holder.
14. The trial court's approach is legally unsustainable. The issue
under Order XXI Rule 2 read with Section 47 CPC is confined to
whether the decree has been satisfied. Once the decree holder
admits his signatures on the receipt acknowledging full and final
payment, the evidentiary burden stands duly discharged. The trial
court instead engaged in irrelevant considerations, ignored crucial
admissions, and adopted an unduly technical view regarding
admissibility of the CD, even though the execution of the receipt
itself stands admitted.
15. It is settled law that an admission is the best evidence
against the maker and unless satisfactorily explained, is conclusive
as to the facts admitted. In the present case, the decree holder's
admission of signature on Ex.1 leaves no room for doubt that the
decretal amount was fully paid and acknowledged. The trial court,
therefore, committed material irregularity in exercise of its
jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
16. In view of the above, this Court holds that the decree dated
22.03.2002 passed in Civil Original Suit No.16/2001 stood fully
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50550] (6 of 6) [CR-9/2016]
satisfied upon payment of Rs.1,07,966/- on 02.10.2012, as
evidenced by Ex.1.
17. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Bhilwara, in Civil Misc.
Case No.36/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The payment
stands certified under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC, and the execution
proceedings shall stand closed.
18. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
18-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 02:34:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
