ORDER : V.R. NEVASKAR, J. 1. This appeal cannot be entertained. 2. The only question raised in this appeal is that in view of the specific term in the compromise decree the judgment-debtor was not justified in making the payment in Court even though he had paid process for informing the decree-holder about his having made such payment into the Court. 3. The terms of Order 21, Rule 1, C. P. C provided as follows:- (1) All money payable under a decree shall be paid as follows namely:- (a) into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree; or (2) ....................................." 4. It is clear from the aforesaid provision and particularly Clause (a) that where money is payable under a decree it is competent for the person liable to make the payment to deposit the same into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree. It is not disputed that the Court in which the money was deposited in the present case was the Court whose duty it was to execute the decree. It is also not disputed that the judgment-debtor made the payment in Court within time required by the compromise decree. It is also not disputed that he had paid the process for intimating the fact of payment to the decree-holder. Unfortunately, however, no notice was issued through Court regarding this payment. The decree-holder executed the decree in ignorance of the payment and obtained possession. The judgment-debtor thereafter applied for restitution under the inherent powers of the Court bringing to the notice of the Court that he had paid the amount of the decree into the Court and had done all things necessary to satisfy the liability under the decree. The Court upheld the judgment-debtor's contention and directed restitution. The appellate Court confirmed this decision. This is a second appeal against that decision. 5. It is contended by Mr. Sanghi for the appellant that in view of the specific terms in the compromise decree the payment ought to have been made to the decree-holder direct and his receipt obtained. Any other mode of payment including one indicated in Clause (1) (a) of Order 21, Rule 1, C. P. C. will be excluded. The learned counsel, in this connection, relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1923 Nag 246 Dhanu Singh vs. Kesheoprasad and 1958 JLJ 66 Rakhadoo vs. Narayan. 6. Any other mode of payment including one indicated in Clause (1) (a) of Order 21, Rule 1, C. P. C. will be excluded. The learned counsel, in this connection, relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1923 Nag 246 Dhanu Singh vs. Kesheoprasad and 1958 JLJ 66 Rakhadoo vs. Narayan. 6. I am unable to accept this contention. There is nothing in the terms of Order 21. Rule 1, C. P. C. to justify the view that one of the modes indicated therein would become unavailable under certain conditions. All the three modes indicated in the clause are in the alternative and any one of them can be followed. 7. The provision of Order 21, Rule 1, C. P. C. for enabling the judgment-debtor to make payment of the money under a decree is made to avoid all possible disputes with regard to the payment. If the payment is made direct the judgment-debtor takes a certain amount of risk. In case the payment is made in Court then there is little possibility of contest regarding the fact of payment. 8. The facts in 1958 JLJ 66 Rakhadoo vs. Narayan, are entirely different. In that case a suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for redemption of mortgage. A consent decree was passed. Under the terms of the decree the plaintiff was required to pay Rs 1,450 by 31-5-1954. In case the defendant failed to make payment on or before 31-5-1954 the plaintiff's suit was to stand dismissed. On 31-5-1954 the Civil Courts were closed on account of summer vacation. The plaintiff brought the amount on the date when the Court re-opened after summer vacation for its being deposited in Court, A memo was accordingly sent by the Presiding Officer to the Nazir to receive the amount. But the Nazir instead of accepting the payment directed him to come the next day. It was accordingly brought the next day and was deposited on 15-6-1954. On these facts it was held that the plaintiff had satisfied his part of the decree by brining the money at proper time in Court. But the Nazir instead of accepting the payment directed him to come the next day. It was accordingly brought the next day and was deposited on 15-6-1954. On these facts it was held that the plaintiff had satisfied his part of the decree by brining the money at proper time in Court. While making a reference to the principles, the learned Judge in that case by the way observed that in the absence of a direction in the decree that the money was tube paid to the respondent personally, the appellant had the option to deposit it in Court, although he could also have adopted other methods of payment, It is clear that these observations were not necessary and if at all on the facts the case supports the present respondent and no way helps the appellant. 9. In AIR 1923 Nag 246 Dhanu Singh vs. Kesheoprasad also the question was whether the payment made on the re-opening of the Court when the due date of payment falls during the vacation is a proper payment or not. The learned Judge in that case observed, upholding the view of the Bombay High Court in ILR 35 Bom 35 Wana vs. Nathu, that where the decree directs payment to the decree holder payment into Court is a valid compliance with the decree. The learned Judge further says ''unless perhaps the Court directed that the payment should be to the decree-holder and not otherwise". I am unable to see the force of "unless perhaps". But it may be said that that question was not involved in that case. 10. I would therefore not consider this to be a fit case for interference. 11. The appeal is therefore dismissed.