1. This is a rule obtained by the judgment-debtor calling upon the decree-holders to show cause why the order directing execution to issue should not be set aside. The decree was obtained as long ago as 5th April 1909 and the application for execution was made on 17th December 1913. Between these two dates on three occasions, as found by the learned Judge of the Court below, the judgment-debtor made part payments to the decree-holders, viz., on 6th March 1911, 18th March 1212 and 21st February 1913. Receipt of each of these payments was endorsed on the back of an office copy of the decree, and thereupon the decree-holders applied on 17th December 1913 for execution for the balance remaining due under the decree.
2. They stated in their application the fact that there had been part payments made and asked the Court to issue execution for the balance. The judgment-debtor stated that he did not make any part-payment and that the entries on the back of the copy of the decree rendering such payments were not genuine. There can be no doubt that these part payments were genuine transactions and the learned Judge came to a correct conclusion when he so decided. The only question is whether these part payments have been properly recorded in the Court because under the terms of O. 21, R. 2, sub-R. (3) of the CPC, “a payment or adjustment of a decree which has not been certified or recorded, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.” There is no definition of what certifying or recording is but it is quite clear that the practice in this country is that the decree-holder certifies the part payments in the application for execution and thereupon the Court having recorded the whole of the petition directs execution to issue for the balance. There is no doubt that is the usual mode of proceeding and that it is not usual that a separate petition is filed merely certifying the part satisfaction of the decree. There is no period of limitation fixed within which the decree-holder must certify and therefore the decree-holder can certify the part payments at any time and if the part payment be within time to prevent the decree from being barred, then execution can issue for the balance. In this case the last part payment was on 21st February 1913 and the execution was applied for on 17th December of the same year. That was obviously within time. The present rule therefore fails and must be discharged with costs one gold mohur.
V.B/R.K
3. Rule discharged.