Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.@mdashThis civil revision is against the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Bokaro in Execution Case No. 2 of 2001 whereby the court below has rejected the petitioner''s prayer for adjustment of the cross award under the provision of Order XXI Rules 18 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure
2. The petitioner''s case is that in between the parties there was an award dated 19.04.1997 and certain sum was awarded to the petitioner against the opposite party. Subsequently, there was an award dated 25.11.2000 in which some amount was payable by the petitioner to the opposite parties. The proceeding for execution of both the awards arc pending in the Court below and in that circumstance, the petitioner is entitled for adjustment of the rights and liabilities of the said award.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating interalia, that the award dated 19.04.1997 was an interim award which merged into the final award dated 25.1 1.2000 and the award dated 19.04.1997 is not executable. It has been further submitted that the petitioner''s application is also not maintainable under law and the same has been rightly rejected by the Court below and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record and also the provisions of law, I find that, the petitioner has made a prayer before the Court below under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 18 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said Rules 18 and 19 of Order XXI of the CPC runs as follows:
18. Execution in case of cross-decrees. -- (1) Where applications are made in a Court for the execution of cross decrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time by such Court, then-
(a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction shall be entered upon both decrees; and
(b) If the two sums are unequal execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for so much only as remains after decuting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered on the decree for the larger sum as well as satisfaction on the decree for the smaller sum.
(2) This rule shall he deemed to apply where either party is an assignee of one of the decrees and as well in respect of judgment-debts due by the original assignor as in respect of judgment-debts due by the assignee himself.
(3) This rule shall not be deemed to apply unless
(a) the decree-holder in one of the suns in which the decrees have been made is the judgment-debtor in the other and each party fills the same character in both suits; and
(b) the sums due under the decrees are definite
(4) The holder of a decree passed against several persons jointly and severally may treat it as a cross-decree in relation to a decree passed against him singly in favour of one or more of such persons.
19. Execution in case of cross-claims under same decree-Where application is made to a Court for the execution of a decree under which two parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other, then-
(a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction for both shall he entered upon the decree; and
(b) if the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out only by the party entitled to the larger sum and for so much only as ramains after deducting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered upon the decree.
5. From bare reading of the said rules of Order XXI it is clear that Rule 18 is applicable in the case where the applications are made to the Court for execution of the Court''s decree in separate suits for payment of two sums of money passed between same parties. Rule 19 is applicable in the case when the application is made to the Court for the execution of a decree under which two parties are entitled to sums of money. Admittedly, in the instant case, neither the application has been made for execution of cross decrees in separate suits for the payment of moneys in between the parties nor the application is for execution of a decree in which the parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other. In the instant case admittedly, the applications are in respect of two awards in the same arbitration case and as such the said provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of Order XXI of the CPC are not application. The Court below has also observed that in this case one award was interim and another is the final award and held that the petitioner''s application is not maintainable under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 18 and 19. I find no illegality or material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court below in rendering the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
