B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) WHETHER the word 'or' used on Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act) in the column 'time from which period limitation begins to run' was disjunctive 'or' used in column 3 (time from which period begins to run) has to be read as 'and' or just 'or', is the short but significant question for determination in the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short the Code), filed by the Defendant judgment debtor against the Plaintiff Respondent, the decree holder. The civil revision was directed against the order dated 20 -4 -91 passed by Sri D.R. Singh, District Judge, Jalaun, rejecting the judgment debtor's application under Order 21 Rule 2, as time barred and the objections under Section 47 of the Code and directing execution case No. 13 of 1980 to proceed.
(2.) FACTS of the case are almost admitted. The opposite party Sampat Lal, the Plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes for the relief of ejectment and arrears of rent and damages, from the premises in suit. The suit was decreed on 20 -12 -79 and revision filed by the Defendant -judgment -debtor under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was rejected on 18 -5 -80. By that time a sum of Rs. 3278.33 had become due from the judgment debtor, against whom execution application was made and it was registered as Execution Case No. 13 of 1980. The judgment debtor filed objection under Section 47 of the Code. On view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code all money payable under a decree was to be paid by depositing in the court, whose duty is to execute the decree, or the amount has to be sent to that court by postal money order etc. In case the payment is made out of court to the decree holder by postal money order or through bank, or by any other means wherein payment is evidenced in writing, or otherwise as the court executing the decree directs. In case payment was made by depositing in court or otherwise, as to the court directs, in view of Rule 1(a) and (c), the judgment debtor must give a notice to the decree holder either through court or otherwise. In case of payment to Bank or Money Order the original suit No. etc. has to be given. Rule 2 of Order 21 indicates payment out of court to the decree holder. It provides that where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of court to the decree holder, or a decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole, or in part to the satisfaction of the decree holder, he must certify such payment or adjustment to the court and the court shall record the same accordingly. Sub -rule (2 -A) of Rule 2 provides that no payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment debtor unless the payment is made in the manner provided under Rule 1 or the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence. Sub -rule (3) of Rule 2 provides that any payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, was not to be recognised by any court executing the decree. In view of this provision the payment or adjustment was to be certified by the decree holder. The judgment debtor alleged that while he was trying to file a writ petition in this Court some respectable persons of the locality intervened and persuaded the parties to come to an amicable terms. On 30 -5 -80 the decree was adjusted between the parties in these terms that the judgment debtor delivers possession of the premises to the decree holder on 2 -7 -80. As on the date of adjustment between the parties on 30 -5 -80, the judgment debtor had no money to make payment to the decree holder, the payment was made on 21 -9 -80, and a fresh contract of tenancy was created in lieu of payment of monthly rent of Rs. 40/ - and the decree holder, the opposite party, has put the judgment debtor, the applicant, in possession of the accommodation in pursuance of fresh contract of tenancy and a lease deed was also executed The decree holder, however, denied the averments made by the judgment debtor about the adjustment of decree, creation of fresh tenancy, delivery of possession or enhancement of rent and also alleged that the application under Order 21 Rule 2 was time barred. The application in execution was struck off regarding the relief of ejectment. Against that order the opposite party decree holder preferred two revisions (Civil Revision Nos. 343 and 344 of 1985) in this Court. Both these revisions were allowed by order dated 12 -12 -88, and this Court directed, that in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 the satisfaction of decree was to be recorded by obtaining certificate from the decree holder. It was further observed by this Court that without recording adjustment the objection under Section 47 could not be allowed. This Court ultimately directed that the application under Order 21 Rule 2 (filed by judgment debtor on 13 -10 -80) for certificate to be obtained from the decree holder was to be decided. This much was admitted to the judgment debtor applicant that the decretal amount was paid and receipt in respect of the same was obtained from the decree holder on 21 -9 -80. The question arose as to whether the application dated 13 -10 -80 filed by applicant judgment -debtor, for certificate to record adjustment and satisfaction of the court below was within the period of 30 days, and whether that 30 days was to be counted from the date the adjustment of decree was made, i.e. 30 -5 -80 or was it to be counted from the date, the payment of entire decretal amount was made by the judgment debtor applicant on 21 -9 -80, the application under Article 125 would be within time if limitation was counted from 21 -9 -80. In this connection it may be stated that the compromise and adjustment between the parties was arrived at on 30 -5 -80 to the effect that monthly rent may be enhanced to Rs. 40/ - and a sum of Rs. 2000/ - may be paid by judgment debtor towards the satisfaction of decree. That amount, however, was paid not on that date, rather in pursuance of that adjustment dated 30 -5 -80 the judgment debtor vacated the possession of the premises on 2 -7 -1980 and paid in full satisfaction of the decree the entire amount on 21 -9 -80 and obtained receipt in writing from the decree holder. Under Article 125 the period was 30 days from the date of payment or adjustment if made.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant urged that the application was within time and the period of 30 days may be counted from the date when the entire payment was made i.e. 21 -9 -80 and not from the date when the adjustment was made on 30 -5 -80. In case limitation is counted from 21 -9 -80, it shall be within time. This argument leads to the conclusion that the word 'or' used in column 3 of Article 125 was not disjunctive, but the same was conjunctive. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, urged that the period of 30 days under Article 125 has to be counted from the date adjustment was made, i.e. 30 -5 -80 and not from the date payment was made and the word 'or' used in column 3 cannot be read as the word 'and'. Article 125 of the Limitation Act is set out below: 125. To record an adjustment Thirty When the payment or satisfaction of a decree. days or adjustment is made.;