@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Ramachandran, J.@mdashThis revision is filed against the Order of the Sub Judge of Mavelikkara in E.A. No. 943 of 1996 in E.P. No. 159 of
1996 in O.S. No. 132 of 1982.
2. The revision Petitioner was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 132 of 1982 before the Sub Court of Mavelikara. In pursuance to the decree
obtained for realisation of the amount due from the revision Petitioner, E.P. No. 159 of 1996 was filed against him. The contention of the revision
Petitioner was that the power of attorney produced before the executing Court was not executed by the decree holder and that it was a forged
one. Another contention taken was that as per the account maintained by the revision Petitioner the amount was discharged to the decree holder
and that there was no amount due as per the decree. To prove his contentions the revision Petitioner wanted evidence to be let in before the
executing Court. Thus he filed E.A. No. 943 of 1996 to summon the decree holder as a witness to prove his case. That was rejected by the
executing Court. Hence this revision.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner submitted that if the revision Petitioner was given an opportunity to let in oral evidence
and if he was allowed to cross-examine the decree holder it would turn out that the power of attorney produced was forged one as the signature
therein was different from the admitted signature in the plaint and the vakalath. It was also submitted that if the revision Petitioner was permitted to
produce his accounts showing the discharge of the decree debt, there was no necessity to execute the decree. Thus the prayer of the learned
Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner was that the revision Petitioner should be given an opportunity to let in oral evidence. Thus the point
arising for consideration is as to whether any oral evidence can be let in by the executing Court.
4. Under Order 21 Rule 2A of the CPC 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 evidence; 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. There is Sub-
rule (3) where it is stated that a payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognised by any
Court executing the decree. Admittedly the alleged payment by the revision Petitioner was not certified. The learned Counsel in this context
referred to Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That deals with the certifying of the payment or adjustment by the decree holder.
Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21 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. In the present case the revision Petitioner has no case that he has taken any steps under
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, his only case is that if he is given an opportunity to let in
oral evidence in the E.P. he would be able to satisfy the Court that the amount was already discharged. Such an opportunity should not be given in
view of the provisions under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus I do not find any merit in this revision.
Regarding the power of attorney produced in execution, it is the duty of the Court to verify as to whether the power of attorney is proper or not.
Thus the question as to whether the power of attorney is proper cannot be challenged by the judgment-debtor in execution. For that reason also
this revision has no merit.
For the above reasons confirming the order of the lower Court this revision is dismissed without costs.