Kuber Nath Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1963 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Aligarh. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: - - One Deep Chand was employed as a second teacher in V.C. Jhuria Higher Secondary School, Hathras. He was removed from service by a resolution of the Institution. Under the Education Code, the matter was referred to for arbitration and in arbitration it was decided that Deep Chand had been wrongly dismissed. Institution was, therefore, directed to reinstate Deep Chand and to pay his arrears of pay from the date of dismissal till the date of joining. This decree was made the rule of the Court. Deep Chand then filed execution application for the recovery of the arrears of salary. He made a second application and as a revision application was filed both the execution applications were stayed. Ultimately, they were dismissed. A third application was filed by the decree holder on the ground that he was never permitted to join and, therefore, he was entitled to arrears of pay from the date of dismissal till a certain date. The judgment -debtor contended that Deep Chand joined unconditionally on 12th February 1958 and, therefore, he was not entitled to any arrears of pay beyond that date. It was also contended on behalf of the judgment -debtor that they have paid a certain amount and after making adjustment of the earlier payments; Rs. 687.94 P. were due from the institution to the decree holder. This objection found favour with the appellate court and the execution application was decided accordingly. Being dissatisfied the appellant has filed this second appeal.
(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court was wrong in taking into consideration the fact that Deep Chand joined post on 12 -2 -1958. This part of the decree was not certified u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC and, as such, the Executing Court could not take notice of this fact, because it was barred by O. 21 R. 2 CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that O. 21 R. 2 is not confined to money decree only but it applies to all decree and, therefore, this provision applied to the present decree also and, as such, the part of the decree regarding re -instatement of the decree -holder was to be certified and, as it was not certified, therefore, the Executing Court should not have taken notice of this fact. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the part of the decree reinstating the decree -holder on his post also needed certification. O. 21 R. 2 CPC runs as follows: O. XXI. Payment out of Court to decree holder: (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of court, or the decree is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree holder, the decree holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the court whose duty it is to execute the decree and the court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment -debtor may also inform the court of such payment or adjustment and apply to the court to issue a notice to the decree -holder to show cause, on a date to be fixed by the court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified and if, after service of such notice the decree -holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified the court shall record the same accordingly. (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded, as aforesaid shall not be recognized by any court, executing the decree.
(3.) The use of the words 'money payable under a decree' clearly indicate that the adjustment u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC should be about the payment of a money, even though that money may be due under a money decree or any other decree. There can be no question of certifying an adjustment if the question of money being payable under a decree is not involved. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the words "or the decree is otherwise adjusted" means that adjustment is required under the law of any decree whether it relates to payment of money or not. The word 'the decree' in the second line has the same purpose behind it and, in my opinion, the word "the" relates to that decree under which a money is payable and, therefore, reading the entire O. 21 R. 1 CPC, I am of the opinion that O. 21 R. 2 CPC comes into play only when there is the question of adjustment or satisfaction of a decree in which money is payable and, in this view of the matter, the part of the decree in the instant case, directing the judgment -debtor to reinstate the decree holder was not a decree which needed satisfaction or adjustment u/O. 21 R. 2 CPC. This argument has, therefore, no force in it.;