SHANTI PRASAD JAIN Vs. BADRI PRASAD SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case at the stage of admission the respondent was served and the counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. Thus the present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission finally.

(2.) THE present revision is directed as against the order dated 19th August, 1987 passed in the execution proceedings. THE bone of contention raised on behalf of the applicant challenging the impugned order passed by the court below is that the finding recorded by it that since no application for the satisfaction of the payment made to the decree-holder was made by the judgment- debtor within the period of limitation, his claim of satisfying the decree cannot be entertained as there was no certification by the decree-holder himself. He further urged that Order 21 Rule 1 CPC prescribes the mode of payment to be made under a decree and since the present payment has been made under the decree such payment should be taken to fall under Order 21 Rule 1 (c) to which Order 21 Rule 2 is not applicable. Secondly it is urged that in any case if this would be a case falling under Order 21 Rule 2 (1) for which there is no limitation. It is contended that, in fact, the payment was made through demand draft which had been received by him though he set up a case that on account of good relationship between the parties when the Munim of the respondent came, cash was given to him in lieu of the draft and it was never the payment for the satisfaction of the decree. It is then urged by the applicant that once the payment is admitted, the burden shifts on the decree-holder respondent to satisfy that it was not in satisfaction of the decree. Argument on behalf of the applicant is misconceived. Order 21 Rule 1 (a) speaks about the deposit made in the court and sub-clause (b) of Order 21 Rule 1 speaks about the payment made outside the Court. Order 21 Rule 2 is regarding a case where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court. It is not in dispute that the payment was made out of the court and it would squarely be covered under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC. Sub-clause (1) of Rule 2 of Order 21 deals with the case where any money is payable under decree out of the court to the satisfaction of the decree-holder or the decree-holder certifies that such payment or adjustment was made to the court. In the present case there is no such certification to the court nor the decree-holder has ever admitted that the payment even if made was for the satisfaction of the decree. It is significant that before a case falls under Order 21 Rule 2 there must be a payment made outside the court which must be for adjustment and satisfaction of the decree and the decree-holder must record its satisfaction and give certificate to the concerned court executing decree. In the present case there is no such certification by the decree-holder that any such payment was made for the satisfaction of the decree, therefore, it would not be a case falling under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC also.