ORDER
1. These two civil revision petitions are connected to each other. They arise out of the award of the Lok Adalat dated 16-11-1996, in O.S.No.106 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Therefore they can be disposed of by common order.
2. Head both sides.
3. The respondent filed O.S.No.106 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civii Judge, Madanapalle against the petitioner for recovery of money from the petitioner an the foot of a promissory-note. Before the Lok Adalat held on 16-1-1996,
the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.55,000/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum within two months in lumpsum but failed to pay the amount as promised. Having waited for a considerable time, the respondent filed O.E.P.No. 66 of 1999 for realisation of Rs. 72,000/-. in that O.E.P., the petitioner filed E.A.No. 159 of 2000 stating that he discharged the debt under Exs.B.l receipt, dated 4-7-1997, and B2 receipt, dated 10-9-1997, issued by the respondent. On that basis the parties let in evidence.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he paid the respondent Rs. 35,000/- under Ex.B.l receipt, Dated 4-7-1997 and Rs. 55.000/-under Ex.B.2 receipt, dated 10-9-1997. But he gave up his contention with regard to the payment Rs. 35,000/- stating that he had not filed Ex.B.1 receipt within one month and on the ground that he could not get the payment recorded by the court below within one month as required under Order 21 Rule2(2A) C.P.C. As the respondent disputed the signature on Ex.B.2, the petitioner filed E.A.No.159 of 2000 requesting the court below to send Ex.B.2 receipt for expert opinion. But the court below rejected that application. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2028 of 2000. This court, by order, dated 12-6-2000, while issuing notice on admission to the respondent, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the decretal amount within a period of three weeks and stayed all further proceedings in the said O.E.P.No.66 of 1999 and ordered that the said interim order, in default, should stand vacated. As the petitioner failed to comply with this order, the executing court proceeded with that O.E.P. and directed the execution of the decree by way of arrest of the petitioner. Questioning the said order in the said O.E.P. the petitioner filed the other revision petition, C.R.P.No.3931 of 2000. This court, while issuing notice on admission to the respondent, directed the petitioner to
deposit 70 per cent of the decretal amount to the credit of the suit on or before 29-9-2000 with a default clause. Thereafter the petitioner seemed to have deposited the said amount. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner deposited 70 per cent of the decretal amount without reference to the agreed interest after the E. P. was filed.
5. Now the question to be considered in these revision petitions is whether the plea of partial discharge of decree is to be accepted and whether Ex.B.2 receipt has to be sent for expert opinion.
6. Admittedly the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat as the respondent agreed to forego a portion of the amount that is due by the petitioner to the respondent and that the petitioner failed to discharge the debt. The respondent having waited for nearly 3 years filed the said O.E.P.No.66 of 1999. For the first time, the petitioner, in his counter filed in the court below, started saying that he paid entire decretal amount. If the version of the petitioner is to be accepted, it must be taken that he paid Rs. 87,000/- two years back in the year 1997. But, in fact, he had to pay only Rs. 72,409/-by 1999. The Conduct of the petitioner is not in consonance with the human conduct. Having taken the loan from the respondent and driven him to the court, for recovery of the amount, and having got the benefit in the Lok Adalat he failed to comply with the award. After 1 1/2 years or so, he says that he paid Rs. 35,000/- under Ex.B.1 and Rs. 52,000/- under Ex.B.2. Had the petitioner really paid those amounts, he would have got the payments recorded by the court under Order 21 Rule 2 (1), (2) and (2A) C. P. C. For better understanding of the case, I am inclined to extract the provisions of Rule 2(1), (2) and (2A) of Order 21 C.P.C. hereunder:
“2(1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court
or a decree of any kind 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 or any person who has become surety for the judgment-debtor also may 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 day 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.
(2A) No payment or adjustment shall be
recorded at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless-
(a) the payment is made in the manner, provided in rule 1; or
(b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidencel or
(c) 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.”
7. Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Sub-Rule (2A) under Rule 2 of Order 21 of C.P.C. with effect from 1-2-1977. Under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21 C.P.C., if any amount is paid by the judgment-debtor, he has to inform the court about the payment made by him and requests the court to issue notice to the decree-holder why the payment should not be recorded. Under Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act,
period of limitation means the period of of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the schedule. Article 125 of the Limitation Act says that if any payment or adjustment is made, the same should be recorded within one month from date of making the payment. In fact, the case of the petitioner is that as he could not get the payment under Ex.B.1 recorded within one month he did not press for the adjustment of that amount. When the payment under Ex.B.I could not be taken into consideration, it is not known how he asked for adjustment of the amount paid under Ex.B.2 on 10-9-1997 as he could not get the adjustment recorded within a period one month. As the petitioner failed to get this adjustment recorded, the court cannot give any credence to Ex.B.2. It is not known how the counsel appearing for the respondent in the lower court had not taken this plea. Now after the E. P. was filed in the year 1999, the petitioner came up with the plea of partial discharge of debt under the guise of Sub-Rule (2A) (a) and (b) of Rule 2 of Order 21 C.P.C. and requested the court to record the said payment. In support of his plea of partial discharge, the petitioner examined two attesters of Ex.B.2 as R.Ws.2 and 3. While R.W.2 is a tenant, R.W.3 is a Councillor in the Municipality, to which the son-in-law of the petitioner happened to be the Municipal Chairman, The court below disbelieved their version, and found that Exs.B.l and B.2 were not true. In other words, the executing court came to the conclusion that Exs.B.l and B.2 were brought into existence by the petitioner with the help of his henchmen, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the executing court.
8. In the result, both on the ground of limitation and on the ground of fabrication of Exs.B.l and B.2, the claim of the petitioner has no legs to stand and it has to be rejected. Both the civil revision
petitions are accordingly dismissed. I feel that this is a fit case where the respondent is entitled to costs at Rs.2,000/- in each revision petition.