IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.221 of 2009 RAGHUNANDAN KESIRI @ RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD KESHRI, son of Manik Chand Keshri, resident of Jay Prabha Marg, P.S. – Tararpur, District - Bhagalpur. ……………. (Defendamt/Judgement Debtor)Petitioner Versus AMAR KUMAR SALARPURIA, son of Shree Bijay Kumar Salarpuria resident of Dr. H.P. Road near Khalifabagh Chowk, P. S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. ……………….. (Plaintiff/Decree Holder) Opposite Party Advocate for Petitioner ---- Mr. Bimlendu Mishra, Adv. ----------- 2 11.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant judgment debtor petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by a Munsif II, Bhagalpur in T.E. Case No. 13 of 2007 whereby the objection raised by the judgment debtor has been rejected. The plaintiff decree holder opposite party had filed Eviction Suit No. 25 of 2003 for eviction of petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court passed an order for payment of rent under the provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1988 which the defendant judgment debtor petitioner failed to comply and, as a result of which, his defence against ejectment was struck off. The suit was decreed and the decree had been put in execution in the present execution case. In the execution case the judgment debtor petitioner filed an objection stating therein that certain payments have been made in lieu of subsequent compromise arrived at between the parties and thus the decree stands satisfy and is not executable which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.11.2009. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent settlement between the parties at some enhanced rate of rent, now the decree stands adjusted and satisfied and therefore, the executing court ought to have accepted the objection and dismissed the execution case, either on being satisfied or on having become un-executable. The executing court, in the impugned order, has clearly stated that nothing has been produced on record by the judgment debtor in support of his submission that certain compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The decree holder appeared and has filed rejoinder refuting the objection made by the judgment debtor. The petitioner, even in this Civil Revision, has not appended any document in support of his submission or objection raised showing any such subsequent development. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that any steps had been taken by either of the parties for certification of any such compromise entered into between the parties for any payment or adjustment under Order XXII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, it would be apt to quote a relevant passage from the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Badamo Devi & Ors. Vs. Sagar Sharma, reported in 1999(3) PLJR (S.C.) 90, para no. 9 which is as under:- “9. Admittedly, neither the decree-holder nor the respondent had applied to the court for certification of the compromise entered into between the parties which had the - 3 - effect of adjustment of the decree in its entirety. What would be the affect of non- compliance of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2 was considered by this Court in Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373, in which the entire case law was reviewed and it was laid down that any payment or adjustment which is not certified under Order XXI Rule 2 would not be recognized by the Executing Court, since the respondent had not approached the court under Order XXI Rule 2 for certifying the adjustment of the decree in terms of the so-called agreement between him and appellant no. 2, the objections filed under Section 47 C.P.C., before the Executing Court, were not maintainable and no investigation was required to be done in these objections.” In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Kundan (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)