IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15,000/-. The appellants/dcfcndants appeared. The parties Compromised and the statements of the learned counsel for the parties were recorded, according to which the suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.12,000/-, which amount was payable in two equal instalments on 20.12.1991 and 20.3.1992 and in case of default, the decree was deemed to be for Rs 15,000/. The appellant failed to pay the amount, and therefore, the respondent filed an execution petition on 3-11-1992. The appellants filed an objection petition on14.12.1992 and took up the position that they had already paid Rs 6,000/- on 313.1992. The appellants were asked to submit surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- which order was complied with. The executing Court thereafter framed the issues on 23.12.1992 and the petition was adjourned to 6th of January, 1993, for evidence of the appellants. Then the petition was adjourned to 23rd of January, 1993, but since no evidence was in attendance, therefore, the appellants requested for time and the matter was adjourned to 10th of February, 1993, on which date the parties requested for adjournment to effect compromise. The petition was accordingly adjourned to 23-2-1993 but it was made clear that in case they fail to reach a compromise, then the evidence of the appellants shall be recorded. The appellants still failed to produce any evidence, therefore, the executing Court closed their side and dismissed the objection petition for lack of proof. Now, the present appeal.
2. It is argued that the appellants were only granted one date for production of evidence and on that day, the objection petition was adjourned on the request of the parties for compromise. The arguments are concluded with the submission that since the objection petition was pending, therefore, the executing Court should not have dismissed it summarily but should have passed a speaking order.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the appellants were given three dates and it was on 23rd of January, 1993, that the petition was adjourned on the request of.The appellants. It is added that the matter is governed by Order XXI rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., therefore, it was the legal obligation of the appellants to make payment against receipt and got the payment certified from the Court, specially when the compromise was arrived during the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent and the decree was passed, The appellants should have been very careful while making the alleged payment of first instalment because penal clause was also incorporated in the agreement between the parties. Moreover, the appellants did not move the Court till the respondent filed the execution petition and they were summoned. Reliance in this respect is placed on Muhammad Ishak Ali vs Hiralal Scraogi (PLD 1964 Dacca 637). The appellants failed to adduce evidence to prove payment of first instalment, therefore, their objection petition was rightly dismissed.
4. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the relevant provisions of the CPC and the Dacca judgment. The admitted position is that the respondent filed a suit for recovery which was decreed on the basis of the Compromise between the parlies. The decretal amount was to be paid in two Instalments. The respondent initiated execution proceedings. The appellants appeared and submitted objection petition to the effect that the first instalment bad already been paid. The executing Court accordingly framed the following issues on 23rd of December, 1992:-
(1) Whether the decree was for Rs 12.000/-ORP
(2) Whether the objector/judgmcnt debtor has paid Rs 6,000/- out of decretal amount to the decree holder? OPR Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 6th of January, 1993 for the evidence of the appellants. The appellants neither produced any evidence nor was any witness summoned, therefore, the petition was adjourned to 23-1-1993, The evidence was again neither present nor summoned. The petition was adjourned to 10-2-1993 on the request of the appellants. The learned counsel for the parties on the last date reported that there were chances of compromise between the parties, therefore, the petition was adjourned to 23rd of February, 1993, but it was made clear that in case the parties failed to arrive a compromise, then the evidence of the appellants shall be recorded. The efforts to arrive at a compromise failed, the appellants were asked to lead evidence but neither any witness was present nor summoned for this date too, therefore, the evidence was closed and the objection petition was dismissed for want of production of evidence. There is nothing wrong with the order.
The executing Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it legally and properly.
5. This is not all. The objection petition Was liable to be dismissed summarily because any payment made without written receipt is not to be acknowledged as valid. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly made reference to rules 1 and 2 of Order XXI CPC and relied upon Muhammad Ishak All's case (PLD 1964 Dacca 637). Before proceeding any further, it would be advantageous to reproduce rule 1 of Order XXf, which reads as under:-
(1) "Modes of paying money under decree.- (1) All money payable under a decree wall be paid as follows, namely: -
(a) into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree; or
(b) out of Court to the decree-holder (through a bank or by postal money order or evidence by writing signed by the decree-holder or his authorized agent); or
(c) otherwise as the Court which made the decree directs"
(2) "Where any payment is made under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), notice of such payment shall be given to the decree holder."
It is clear from the above provisions that in order to validly satisfy the decree, the payment has cither to be made:
(I) Into the executing Court;
(II) through a bank or postal money order or evidence to be in writing signed by the decree holder or his authorized agent; or
(III) as per directions contained in the decree itself.
When the decretal amount is paid out of Court or a decree otherwise is in whole or part, then the decree holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the executing Court. The judgment debtor is also under legal obligation to Inform the executing Court as to such payment or adjustment. The Court shall certify the same after issuing notice to the decree holder.
6. Any payment made in the manner not provided in rule 1 or adjustment not made in writing cannot be recognized by the executing Court. Now, in the present case, the first instalment was allegedly paid on 31-3-1992, but the appellants did not move the executing Court under role 2 of Order XXI CPC. It was only on 14-12-1992 after receiving ridticc in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent, when the appellants proceeded to file the objection petition. The same was not competent.
7. The upshot of the above discussions is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.