D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---This chamber summons is taken out by the defendants- judgment- debtors- for an order of recording "adjustment" and satisfaction of decree dated 21st September, 1987 passed by this Court in this suit in terms of alleged agreement dated 21st April, 1990 propounded by the defendants, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit 3' to the affidavit of defendant No. 1 dated 15th May, 1990 made in support of this chamber summons. This chamber summons raises interesting questions of law relating to interpretation and application of Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the role of a notary in attesting copy of document as certified copy. The plaintiff has alleged that the alleged agreement propounded by the defendants is a forged document and it was never executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff decree-holder is a practising advocate. The defendant No. 1 is a builder. Oral evidence led in this case consists of the evidence of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and one Mr. Sonavane, Advocate-Notary. Mr. Sonavane has notarised xerox copy of the abovereferred alleged agreement as true copy and placed his signature and seal on last page of bunch of papers marked Exhibit 2' in the evidence. The original of Exhibit 2' is not forthcoming. The oral evidence of the three witnesses is extremely unsatisfactory as would be shown in the later part of this judgment. Parties have tried their best to suppress the truth and give most evasive answers to the material questions. In the circumstances this chamber summons is bound to fail on the ground that the defendants have failed to prove the document propounded by them and discharge the burden of proof to prove the alleged adjustment of the decree.

2. Some of the important questions arising in this proceeding are as under:---

(1)(a) What is the meaning of the expression 'adjustment' under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(b) Whether Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable to executory agreements prescribing new rights and obligations and providing for non-execution of the decree in the event of the judgment-debtor fulfilling the conditions stipulated under the agreement?

(c) Whether Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable only to completed agreements providing for immediate extinguishment of decretal liability in full or in part?

(d) Whether the agreement not amounting to 'adjustment' under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be set up by the judgment-debtor as a bar to execution under section 47 of the Code?

(2) Whether the chamber summons is barred by limitation?

(3)(a) Whether the judgment-debtors prove that the alleged agreement dated 21st April, 1990 was executed by the plaintiff-decree-holder?

(b) Whether the alleged agreement dated 21st April, 1990 is a forged document?

(c) Whether the notarised copy of the alleged agreement dated 21st April, 1990 was notarised by Mr. Sonavane, Advocate, without any scrutiny as to the identity of the executant of the original agreement of which the impugned copy purports to be a copy? If so, what is the probative value of such a notarised copy?

3. It shall be obvious from bare narration of facts in subsequent paragraphs of this judgment that the original transaction continues to remain shrouded in mystery and the consideration of Rs. 1 lac for sale of land and building with vacant possession of two flats of 500 sq. feet each is far too ridiculous.

4. The facts and circumstances, in brief, giving rise to the present proceeding shall have to be set out in detail having regard to the nature of the questions required to be decided by the Court. The relevant facts are as under:---

(a) The plaintiff is a practising advocate. The plaintiff is Karta of a H.U.F. concern consisting of himself and members of his family in the name of "Pushpak Enterprise". Prior to passing of decree on admission dated 21st September, 1987 in Suit No. 2434 of 1987 referred to hereinafte