The power of the executing court to determine objections relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree under Section 47 CPC is distinct from the procedure prescribed in Order 21, Rule 2 CPC for recording satisfaction of a decree, and the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 CPC do not restrict the court's power to investigate and adjudicate upon objections that affect the execution of the decree.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and after hearing the case the learned Judge felt that the question referred to us needs the decision of a larger Bench. Consequently the matter has been placed before us.

( 2 ) THE question referred is: -" whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the judgment-debtor can resist the execution of the decree without any application being made by him under Order. 21 Rule 2 CPC and the adjustment and/or satisfaction of the decree being recorded by the court, which passed the decree?"

( 3 ) THE facts necessary to dispose of this matter are that the petitioner obtained a decree for ejectment against the non-applicant in Civil Suit No. 7/66-A. This decree was passed on 6-5-1986. The decree was for ejectment and arrears of rent. On 7th July, 1976, this decree was put into execution with prayer for eviction of the non-applicant. The non-applicant raised certain objections to the execution by saying that the decree-holder had obtained possession of the decretal premises and after having obtained possession thereof the decree-holder entered into a fresh agreement with the non-applicant and let out these premises to him on enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 12/ -. It was therefore contended by the judgment-debtor non-applicant that the non-applicant has been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month but no receipts were passed and as the decree-holder wanted to further enhance the rent to which the non-applicant did not agree, the present execution petition has been filed. It was therefore contended that the decree has been satisfied and a fresh contract of tenancy has been entered into and the non-applicant judgment-debtor is in possession under a new contract. It was therefore contended that the decree for eviction could not be executed against him.

( 4 ) THE executing Court rejected this objection without any inquiry by holding that as the objection pertains to adjustment of the decree and the adiustment has not been certified under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the prescribed period of limitation therefore, it could not be considered. Against this, an appeal was preferred and in this appeal the Additional District judge, Indore set aside the order passed by the executing Court and directed that the objection be enquired into. Aggrieved by this order the present revision petition was filed. In the revision petition it was contended that as the objections of the judgment-debtor fall within the ambit of Order 21, Rule 2 and as admittedly they have not been certified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order 21, Rule 2 within the period of limitation no inquiry could be conducted.

( 5 ) IT is apparent from the objections raised by the judgment-debtor non-applicant that they are mainly two: (i) that the decree has been satisfied as the possession was restored to the decree-holder of the premises: and (ii) that the non-applicant has been put into the premises under a fresh agreement on enhanced rent of Rs. 12/- per month. It is in this context that the learned single Judge -who heard the revision petition wanted an answer from a larger bench to the question noted above.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the language of Order 21, rule 2 CPC clearly indicates that any adjustment of the decree wholly or in part has to be certified as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 2 within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 125 of the Limitation Act. And that not having been done, it cannot be now gone into. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Civil Revision No. 997/73 (Prataprai v. Hemandas) decided on 16-9-1974 at Jabalpur and short-noted in 1975 MPLJ (Notes) 14. He frankly conceded that a contrary view has been taken in the case reported in Mahammad Ali v. Bahadur Singh, 1977 Jab LJ 29 and in that decision reliance has been placed on a