1. A payment or adjustment made out of court, which has not been certified or recorded as required under O. 21, R. 2(3) of the CPC, cannot be recognized by the court executing the decree. 2. Matters relating to execution, satisfaction, and discharge of a decree should be agitated before the execution court by an application under O. 21, R. 90 of the CPC, and a separate suit is barred under S. 47 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT:- This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-579 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati, whereby the defendant respondents Appeal No. 7 of 1978 against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-78 passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati was allowed, and the plaintiff appellants suit was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff had filed suit challenging the auction-sale of her 2 B.10 L. of land in Execution Case No. 41 of 1966 allegedly for Rs. 255/- on 27-9-67, on grounds of fraud and in disregard of the provisions of R. 85 of O. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter the Code.

3. Briefly, the undisputed facts are that the present respondent had obtained decree against the present appellants in Title Suit No. 228/ 61 with costs, which was assessed at Rs. 199/-. The present appellants appeal was dismissed. The present respondent filed Title Execution No. 41/66 for realisation of the cost decretal money. The appellants land -2 B. 10 L. was sold in auction on 27-9-67. The appellant filed application under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code, being Misc. (J) Case No. 154/67 challenging the said sale. During the pendency of the said Misc. Case, it was stated by the appellant that the matter was settled between the parties and the decree was satisfied out of Court, in that an amount of Rs. 205/- had been paid in satisfaction thereof.

The appellant alleged that suppressing that fact, the defendant the present respondent had the said sale confirmed on 19-5-69 without having deposited the excess amount of sale proceed, as required under the mandatory provision of O. 21, R. 85 of the Code. The plaintiff appellant, therefore, filed the suit for setting aside the said auction-sale. The present respondent contested the suit and stated that the suit was not maintainable being barred by the provisions of S.47, O. 21, R. 2 and O. 21, R. 92(3) of the Code.

4. Earlier, the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit. In appeal, however, the matter was remanded for fresh decision. Thereafter, the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 8-2-78 decreed the suit. The learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri P.Pathak, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has strenuously submitted that the plaintiffs valuable land, area 2 B. 10 L. had been sold for almost nothing for Rs. 255/-, that it was result of nothing, but collusion and fraud, that the defendant respondent who was the decree-holder in the said Execution Case No. 41/66 had to deposit the balance amount of the sale price in Court under the mandatory provisions of O.21, R. 85 of the Code, and that having not been done, the sale was obviously a result of fraud also on Court which had beer misled to confirm the sale which should, therefore, be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that such auction sale should not be allowed to prevail.

6. On the other hand, Shri P.N.Goswami, learned counsel for the defendant respondent, has submitted that there was no fraud in auction sale, that the suit was barred by the provisions of S.47, O. 21, R. 2 and also O. 21, R.92(3) of the Code inasmuch as the matter raised by the plaintiff appellant related to auction sale in execution, and the proper remedy for the plaintiff appellant was under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code, and no suit could lie. Besides, the matter, in any case, related to execution, satisfaction and discharge of the decree, and hence the suit was barred under S.47 of the Code.

7. I have considered the respective submissions for the parties.

8. The main points which arise for consideration are firstly that whether there was any fraud in auction sale as alleged by the plaintiff appellant, and secondly whether the suit was barred under S.47 and also under the provisions of O. 21, R. 92(3) of the Code.

9. In so far as the first point is concerned, it may be noted tha