THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.No.5707 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.502 of 2002 aggrieved by the order in E.A.No.177 of 2005 dated 09.08.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. The respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder firm represented by two partners viz., Koppavarapu Chandrasekhar and Somisetti Narasimhulu filed the suit for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2005. Alleging that he has paid the decretal amount of Rs.62,600/- towards full and final settlement of the decree to the partner of the decree holder firm by name G.V. Lakshmana Gupta, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.177 of 2005. The said application is dismissed by the court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. The modes of paying money under decree are prescribed under Order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C. As per the said provision money payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:- a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that court by postal money order or through a bank; or b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. 2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule(1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. 3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely:- a) the number of the original suit; b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants; c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs; d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and e) the name and address of the payer. 4) On any amount paid under (a) or clause (c) of sub rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). 5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment: Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment through a Bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the Bank, as the case may be.” In this case, it is to be noted that the respondent firm represented by two partners is a decree holder. The allegation of the petitioner that he has paid money to another partner by name Lakshmana Gupta is disbelieved by the court below and recorded a finding that the said mode of payment is not in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C. I have perused the order passed by the court below. The court below while appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record has disbelieved the version of the petitioner-judgment debtor with regard to payment of decretal amount to one Lakshmana Gupta. In any event, it is also to be noticed that by paying money other than the mode prescribed under Order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C. the petitioner cannot resist the execution by filing E.A. alleging that he has paid money covered by the decree. In view of the reasons recorded by the court below, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order passed by the court below. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Dt. 20.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.No.5707 OF 2010 Dt. 20.12.2010