Sulaiman, A C J - (1.)This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings which were objected to by the judgment-debtor. The appellant Ganga Dihal had obtained a decree for costs against Ram Oudh and others jointly. He applied for execution of this decree principally against Ram Oudh the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to the application for execution pleading that the decree had been adjusted out of Court, and in that very objection prayed that the payment of the decree may be caused to be certified by the decree-holder. The Court below has held that the objection can be entertained and has found in favour of the objector and dismissed the application.
(2.)The first point raised before me is that the prayer for adjustment should have been made before the application for execution was filed and that the payment ought to have been certified and recorded in a separate proceeding previous to the execution application. Strong reliance is placed on the case of Baijnath V/s. Panna Lal A.I.R. 1924 All. 706. In my opinion that case must now be taken to have been overruled by the Full Bench case of Joti Prasad Sri Chand . It seems to me that it is not necessary that the application praying for the adjustment to be recorded should be a document separate from the objections filed by the judgment-debtor.
(3.)The adjustment was alleged to have been made on 28 March 1927, and the prayer for the adjustment to be recorded was made on 9 May 1927. The judgment-debtor's application was therefore within 90 days as required by Article 174, Lim. Act, and could be entertained. No doubt the alleged adjustment was disputed by the decree-holder. But it is now clearly settled that the Court even in case of such dispute can enquire into the matter and record the adjustment if it is proved. The expression "the decree-holder fails to show cause" in Order 21 Rule 2, Sub-clause (2) obviously does not merely "mean fails to appear" but would include fails to satisfy the Court". Lachman Das V/s. Baba Ram Nath Kali Kamliwala A.I.R. 1922 All. 13, was also a case where the decree-holder was denying the adjustment and the Court assumed that the matter could be enquired into.