ORDER
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.
1. The judgment debtors in EP.No. 10 of 1999 in OS.No. 13 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole filed this revision petition against the order-dated 25.8.1999 passed by the Executing Court in the said EP.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:
The decree holder filed the suit OS No. 13 of 1992 for specific performance of the sale agreement executed by the judgment debtors. The suit was settled in the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award directing the judgment debtors to pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/ to the decree holder. As the said amount was not paid by the judgment debtors subsequently, the above EP was filed by the decree holder for sale of the property and for realization of the decretal amount. The judgment debtors filed a counter taking the plea that after passing the award, the decree holder took possession of the property referred to in the EP and agreed to appropriate Rs. 2,000/- per month and he also agreed to credit the said sum as part-payment of the award; and from January, 1998 till October, 1998, the decree holder enjoyed the usufruct of the coconut garden; and in fact, the decree holder collected an excess amount of Rs. 3,000/-. It is also stated in the counter that when the judgment debtors asked for issue of receipt, the decree holder postponed the matter to issue receipt on one pretext or other. After filing of the counter by the judgment debtors, the Executing Court posted the matter for enquiry. At the time of enquiry, the judgment debtors sought for time to adduce evidence. At that stage, noticing the averments in the counter filed by the judgment debtors, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that adducing of evidence by the judgment debtors is only to protract the matter, and overruled the objections raised by the judgment debtors in the counter and ordered next step in the execution proceedings. The said order was passed by the Executing Court on 25.8.1999. Questioning the said order, the judgment debtors filed the present revision petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioners that when once the Executing Court posted the EP for enquiry, it should not have refused to permit the judgment debtors to adduce evidence in support of the contentions raised by the judgment debtors in the counter. Normally, the Executing Court shall give an opportunity to the judgment debtors to adduce evidence. In the circumstances of the present case, I do not find any substance in the contentions advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. I am not concerned now with the reasons given by the Executing Court for not permitting the judgment debtors to adduce evidence.
4. Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 fixes a period of limitation of 30 days to record an adjustment or satisfaction of a decree and the time starts to run from the date when the payment or adjustment is made. It is clear form the averments in the counter that the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors was long prior to 30 days from the date of filing of the counter. Further, the judgment debtors have not filed any petition in the Executing Court to record the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors in their counter. Therefore, even if the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors is true, the said plea is barred by limitation.
5. There is also one another impediment in accepting the contentions advanced on behalf of the judgment debtors. Order 21, Rule 2-A CPC lays down that no payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment debtor, unless the payment is made in the manner provided in Rule 1 or the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence or the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of, the decree holder in his reply to the notice given under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, or before the Court.
6. It is clear from the averments in the counter that there is no documentary evidence to prove the adjustment in question. The judgment debtors have taken the plea that they had asked for receipt from the decree holder and the decree holder postponed giving of the receipt on some pretext or other. That plea itself clearly shows that even according to the judgment debtors, there is no documentary evidence to support the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors. Further, it is not the case of the judgment debtors that the payment is made as provided in Order 21, Rule 1 CPC. Further, the adjustment is not admitted by the decree holder. Further, no notice as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 1(2) CPC was given by the judgment debtors to the decree holder. Therefore, even if the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors is true, the Court is prohibited from recording the adjustment at the instance of judgment debtors in view of the provision contained in Order 21, Rule 2-A CPC. It is already noticed that the adjustment pleaded by the judgment debtors is barred by limitation as provided under Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963. When such is the principle of law, it is not necessary for the executing Court to permit the judgment debtors to adduce oral evidence and ultimately say that the said adjustment pleaded cannot be recognised or acted upon by the Executing Court in view of the bar contained in Order 21, Rule 2-A CPC. In the circumstances noticed above, recording of oral evidence would be futile and unnecessary exercise. I, therefore, do not see any reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
7. In the result, the CRP dismissed.