JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2002 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings were dismissed.
2. The respondent-decree holder filed an application for execution of judgment and decree dated 16.9.1983. The petitioner-judgment debtor filed objections stating that the aforesaid decree had become infructuous on 13.6.1988 as the decree holder had received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards decretal amount in full satisfaction of the claim from him vide receipt dated 13.6.1988, Exhibit RW-2 and, therefore, the execution application was liable to be dismissed accordingly. The objections filed by the judgment-debtor, were, however, dismissed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the executing court that the judgment debtor had not paid the amount as stated in his objection petition, was erroneous and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent’ while supporting the impugned order drew my attention to Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that under the said provision, a duty is cast upon the judgment-debtor to inform or certify such payment to the executing court for getting the same recorded by the court and the failure of the judgment-debtor not to follow that procedure would clearly indicate that no payment had in fact been made by him. The counsel further contended that even otherwise, as per Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 2 of Order XXI, no payment or adjustment is liable to be recorded at the instance of the judgment debtor unless the same has been made in the manner provided in Rule 1, or the same is proved by documentary evidence or is otherwise admitted by the decree holder in reply to the show cause notice given under Sub-rule(2) of Rule 1, or before the Court. Learned counsel in support of this argument placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Badamo Devi and Ors. v. Sagar Sharma 2000(1) Apex Court Journal 59 (S.C.).
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code clearly shows that a procedure has been prescribed under the said Sub-rulethat where any money payable under a decree is paid to the decree-holder out of Court, or any adjustment is made in whole or in part for the satisfaction of the decree, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court where the decree is to be executed and the same shall be so recorded by the said Court. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order XXI prescribes a procedure that any payment that may be made by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder outside the Court or by way of any adjustment made by him with the decree holder, the judgment-debtor or any person who has stood surety for him can apply to the Court for recording the payment or adjustment as certified and the Court after issuing notice to the decree-holder shall record the same accordingly. Further, the provisions of Sub-rule (2-A) of rule of Order XXI clearly provides that no Court shall record any payment or adjustment at the instance of the judgment debtor unless such payment has been made in the manner provided in Rule 1; or the same is otherwise proved on record by documentary evidence or has been admitted by or on behalf of the decree-holder in reply to the show cause notice issued under sub Rule 2 of Rule 1 Order XXI, or before the Court itself.
6. In the instant case, the judgment debtor had filed objections praying for dismissal of the execution application claiming that he had paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the decree holder in satisfaction of the decree sought to be executed, vide receipt dated 13.6.1988 (Exhibit RW-2) and nothing remained payable to the decree holder. It is evident from the impugned order that in order to establish his stand, the judgment-debtor, besides leading oral evidence primarily pressed into service the receipt dated 13.6.1988. The assertion of the judgment-debtor was strongly controverted by the decree-holder. It was categorically stated by the decree-holder that the said receipt was a forged and fabricated document. In the wake of the aforesaid allegations casting doubts on the genuineness of the receipt, both the parties produced handwriting and finger-print experts before the executing court. The executing court after appraisal of entire oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the parties and in particular, having considered the opinions given by the Experts examined by the parties had found that the signatures of Nohar Chand (decree holder) on the alleged receipt Exhibit RW-2 do not correspond with his signatures on execution application and Vakalatnama. The executing court also found that the other glaring aspect of the said receipt to be a forged document was evident from the fact that the thumb impression of Gurbachan Singh Sarpanch who had been cited as a witness of the said receipt when compared by DW-4 Anil Kumar Handwriting Expert with those appearing on the sale deed Exhibit DW2/A, were not identical. On the basis of the above, the executing court had thus come to the conclusion that the petitioner-objector had failed to prove that he had made the payment to the decree-holder on 13.6.1988 and he had executed a valid receipt dated 13.6.1988 proved on record as Exhibit RW-2. I find no illegality or infirmity in the said finding, which is a finding of fact based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The fact thus remains that the judgment-debtor had failed to prove on record the payment to the-decree holder as alleged in his objections.
7. The Apex Court in Badamo Devi and others’ case (supra) while considering, intrinsically the same question, has held in para 10 as under:-
Admittedly, neither the decree-holder nor the respondent had applied to the Court for certification of the compromise entered into between the parties which had the effect of adjustment of the decree in its entirety. What would be the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 was considered by this Court in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, , in which the entire case-law was reviewed and it was laid down that any payment or adjustment which is not certified under Order 21 Rule 2 would not be recognised by the executing court. Since the respondent had not approached the Court under Order 21 Rule 2 for certifying the adjustment of the decree in terms of the so-called agreement between him and Appellant 2, the objections filed under Section 47 C.P.C. before the executing Court were not maintainable and no investigation was required to be done in those objections.
8. In view of the above, the approach of the executing court in dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.