1. This Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the additional 2nd decree holder impugns an order passed by the executing court by which that court has accepted the contention raised by the judgment-debtors that they have paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of court in full settlement of the decree-debt, A resume of the facts is given below.

2. The decree in question is a simple money decree passed in favour of a partnership firm by name M/s. Sreyas Financiers represented by its then Managing Partner Mr. M.K. Divakaran Nair who is no more. The revision petitioner is the present Managing Partner of the said firm. Execution proceedings were initiated only after the demise of Sri. M.K. Divakaran Nair.

3. The judgment-debtors-respondents entered appearance and filed objections to the notice under R.66 of O. XXI CPC. The objections were filed more than 2 years after they entered appearance. In the objections they took up a contention that on 10.8.1995 the original judgment-debtor, whose legal representatives the additional judgment-debtors are, had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to Sri. M.K. Divakaran Nair. Along with the objections, they produced a photostat copy of an agreement (referred to hereinafter as Ext. B1) which evidences the payment of Rs. 75,000/-. On the basis of Ext. B1, it was prayed by them through the objections that credit should be given to the amount mentioned in Ext. B1 against the decree-debt.

4. The decree-holder opposed by filing a detailed statement. According to the decree-holder, the firm had never received the amount covered by Ext. B1 and at any rate, the amount could not be given credit to since the same was not certified as required by O. XXI R.2 C.P.C.

5. In the instant case, the executing court rejected the judgment debtors' plea. Against that order, C.R.P. No. 190 of 2000 was filed before this Court by the judgment-debtors. This Court set aside the order passed by the executing court and remanded the case back to the executing court for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to the judgment-debtors to adduce evidence in support of their case. It was after the remand order that the second judgment-debtor gave evidence and got Ext. B1 document marked in evidence. The court below relied on the evidence adduced by R.W.1 as also Ext. B1 and noticing the circumstance that no contra evidence was forthcoming and the further circumstance that a suit was already filed against Sri. M.K. Divakaran Nair by the second judgment-debtor for performing the further obligations under Ext. B1, held that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid towards the decree-debt in the present case. This was done overruling the objections raised by the decree-holder on the basis of sub-r. (2) of R.2 of 0.21 and R.2A of O. XXI C.P.C.

6. Heard Adv. Sri. Tom K. Thomas representing M/s. Dandapani Associates for the revision petitioner. The case for the respondents was argued in part by Adv. Sri. A.S.P. Kurup and then by Adv. Sri. Sadchith P. Kurup. Copies of the relevant papers pertaining to the execution proceedings were supplied to me by the counsel and I have perused them.

7. Before me, it was argued on behalf of the revision petitioner that Ext. B1 document should not have been admitted in evidence and that the same has not been properly proved. It was further argued that Ext. B1 in any event will not show that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid towards the decree-debt in the present case. The learned counsel also argued that, at any rate, the alleged payment has not been certified as required by R.2 of 0.21 C.P.C. and therefore, the executing court is interdicted from entertaining the plea of discharge of payment on the basis of Ext. B1.

8. I have carefully perused Ext. B1 which is written in the vernacular. It is dated 10th August, 1995 and purports to be an agreement on a plain paper executed by Sri. Divakaran Nair in his personal capacity, in favour of Sri. Kuttappan Nair. The essential terms of this document are, an acknowledgment to th