( 1. ) THIS is a second appeal arising out of an execution case.

( 2. ) THE respondent obtained a decree for ejectment of the appellant from a plot occupied by him as a tenant in Civil Suit No. I22-A of 1952. Thereafter he started execution proceedings against the appellant. The case of the appellant is that on 9-2-1961 the parties came to terms and a fresh tenancy was created at the rate of Rs. 71 per month in his favour by the respondent; and thereafter the respondent got the execution case dismissed on 22-9-1961. The respondent recovered rent at the rate of Rs. 71 per month from the appellant after 9-2-1961 till 1963 and passed receipts for the same. According to the appellant, he spent a huge amount for the construction of pucca structures for running rice and poha mills after the new tenancy was created on 9-2-1961. In 1965 the respondent again filed an execution application for ejectment of the appellant. The appellant filed an objection contending that he could not be ejected in the circumstances of the case. The executing Court, however, dismissed the objection on 19-9-1973 on the ground that the alleged compromise or settlement was not certified in accordance with the provisions of rule 2 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, it could not be given effect to in execution proceedings. The appellant thereupon filed an appeal which was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Durg. Being aggrieved thereby, he has filed this second appeal.

( 3. ) THE facts stated by the appellant have not been investigated so far by the Courts below because the objection was held to be untenable in view of the provisions of rule 2 of Order XXI of the Code. I have, therefore, to consider whether the objection filed by the appellant is tenable, assuming the facts stated by him to be true.

( 4. ) RULE 2 of Order XXI reads as under:

"r. 2. (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or the decree is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment debtor also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall record the same accordingly. (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree. "

( 5. ) THE basic point for consideration in this case is whether the facts stated by the appellant amount to an adjustment of the decree and the adjustment, having not been certified or recorded within limitation, cannot be recognized in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of Order XXI. Before I proceed to deal with this question, I may observe that the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 are extremely harsh and must, therefore, be restrictively construed. Sub-rule (1) of rule 2 makes it obligatory for the decree-holder to certify an adjustment to the Court; but his wilful omission to discharge this duty puts him at an advantage vis-a-vis the judgment debtor, inasmuch as he is still competent to execute the decree against the judgment-debtor who has tailed to get the adjustment recorded by the executing Court within time as required by sub-rule (2 ). Since it is clear from sub-rule (1) of rule 2 that the Legislature enjoins on the decree-holder the duty to certify an adjustment to the Court, it is difficult to understand why the decree-holder is not penalised for his failure to discharge this duty and, on the contrary, he is placed in a position of advantage, as poin