The word 'or' in column 3 of Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be read as 'and' in order to give effect to the legislative intent.

B.L. Yadav, J.

Whether the word 'or' used on Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act) in the column 'time from which period limitation begins to run' was disjunctive 'or' used in column 3 (time from which period begins to run) has to be read as 'and' or just 'or', is the short but significant question for determination in the present revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short the Code), filed by the Defendant judgment debtor against the Plaintiff Respondent, the decree holder. The civil revision was directed against the order dated 20-4-91 passed by Sri D.R. Singh, District Judge, Jalaun, rejecting the judgment debtor's application under Order 21 Rule 2, as time barred and the objections u/s 47 of the Code and directing execution case No. 13 of 1980 to proceed.

2. Facts of the case are almost admitted. The opposite party Sampat Lal, the Plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes for the relief of ejectment and arrears of rent and damages, from the premises in suit. The suit was decreed on 20-12-79 and revision filed by the Defendant-judgment-debtor u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was rejected on 18-5-80. By that time a sum of Rs. 3278.33 had become due from the judgment debtor, against whom execution application was made and it was registered as Execution Case No. 13 of 1980. The judgment debtor filed objection u/s 47 of the Code. On view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code all money payable under a decree was to be paid by depositing in the court, whose duty is to execute the decree, or the amount has to be sent to that court by postal money order etc. In case the payment is made out of court to the decree holder by postal money order or through bank, or by any other means wherein payment is evidenced in writing, or otherwise as the court executing the decree directs. In case payment was made by depositing in court or otherwise, as to the court directs, in view of Rule 1(a) and (c), the judgment debtor must give a notice to t he decree holder either through court or otherwise. In case of payment to Bank or Money Order the original suit No. etc. has to be given. Rule 2 of Order 21 indicates payment out of court to the decree holder. It provides that where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of court to the decree holder, or a decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole, or in part to the satisfaction of the decree holder, he must certify such payment or adjustment to the court and the court shall record the same accordingly. Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 2 provides that no payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment debtor unless the payment is made in the manner provided under Rule 1 or the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 provides that any payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, was not to be recognised by any court executing the decree. In view of this provision the payment or adjustment was to be certified by the decree holder.

3. The judgment debtor alleged that while he was trying to file a writ petition in this Court some respectable persons of the locality intervened and persuaded the parties to come to an amicable terms. On 30-5-80 the decree was adjusted between the parties in these terms that the judgment debtor delivers possession of the premises to the decree holder on 2-7-80. As on the date of adjustment between the parties on 30-5-80, the judgment debtor had no money to make payment to the decree holder, the payment was made on 21-9-80, and a fresh contract of tenancy was created in lieu of payment of monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and the decree holder, the opposite party, has put the judgment debtor, the applicant, in possession of the accommodation in pursuance of fresh contract of tenancy and a lease deed was also executed The decree holder, however, denied the averments made by the judgme