A.P.Misra - (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. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Vidyadhar v. Ramjan, AIR 1952 Alld. 715, where it was held that there is no provision in the Limitation Act for certification by a decree-holder and the decree-holder can certify such payment even after the period of limitation i.e. even if the execution of the decree is barred but for such payment. It also holds that Order 21 Rule 2 CPC does not provide for any forum of application by the decree-holder nor does it provide for issue of notice when the decree-holder certifies payment. In the present case the question is not that there is any period of limitation provided under sub-clause (1) of Order 21 Rule 1 nor in the absence of an application by the decree-holder where it could or could not be treated to be a certificate by the decree-holder. In this case the decree-holder vehemently has taken up a case that no payment was made for satisfaction of the decree. Payment which is alleged by the demand draft was on account of good relationship between the parties and the money in view of the same was ultimately paid to the Munim of the judgment debtor. Thus even this fact could not constitute a case of certification for the satisfaction of the decree made by the decree-holder. Once Rule 2 (1) of Order 21 is not applicable, Order 21 Rule 2 will also be not of any help as it is barred by time. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21 applies where the decree-holder does not make any such application. Under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21 the judgment debtor has been given opportunity for making application showing satisfaction. However, for making such application it is not in dispute that there is limitation under the Old Act Article 174 within 90 days from the date of such payment whereas under new Article 134 it is 30 days. In this case no such application of the judgment debtor was made after several years, thus even if it could be said that the judgment debtor really paid for the satisfaction of the decree, the case could not be considered under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable. I have perused the impugned order and I do not find any infirmity or illegality or any jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The present revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Costs on parties. Interim order dated 1-9-87 is vacated. Revision dismissed.;