JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this application under section 482 Cr. PC may be stated very briefly. The house of the non-petitioner Jasraj was mortgaged with the present petitioners Pukhraj and Davendra Kumar for a sum of Rs. 2500/- with interest at 12% on 16-10-62. The house was rented back to Jasraj. As he did not pay the rent or interest, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed by the present petitioners against Jasraj and the same was decreed on 10-8-65. In execution of that decree, the petitioners decree-holders obtained possession of the house and got the execution application dismissed on 3-3-70. The arrears of rent, however, had not been recovered. Thereafter on 26-1-70, Jasraj again created a second mortgage on the same house for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- which amount also included the arrears of rent for which the earlier decree had already been obtained. 2. It appears that on 5-3-71, the present petitioners-decree-holders again levied execution for the recovery of Rs. 1600/- approximately under the decree for arrears of tent. The judgment-debtor Jasraj raised an objection that since the amount of this decree had already been included in the second mortgage, the execution for the recovery of that amount did not lie. The decree-holders-petitioners disputed this. The executing court held an enquiry and by its order dated 24-2-79 accepted the judgment-debtor's plea and dismissed the execution application. The executing court, however, rejected the judgment-debtor's plea that a prosecution may be launched against the decree-holders for levying execution for an amount which had already been recovered. 3. Aggrieved of this order of the learned executing court dated 24-2-79, the decree-holders came in revision to this Court and at the same time, the judgment-debtor also filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore against a part of the order declining to launch a prosecution against the decree-holders. 4. The revision filed by the decree-holders was accepted by this Court by its order dated 20-2-80 and it held that since payment under the decree had not been got certified under Order 21 Rule 2 sub-rule (3) CPC, there was legislative inhibition for recognising the uncertified or an-recorded payments or adjustments, therefore, the executing court could not have conducted any enquiry regarding the alleged adjustment. It further observed "It may be that the decree might have been adjusted against the mortgage deed and the decree-holder may be levying execution for the decretal amount, which already stands adjusted, as contended by Shri Mehta, but when sub-rule (3) debars the court to recognise such an adjustment, in face of this provision uncertified adjustment cannot be given recognition." It thus set aside the finding of the executing court regarding the adjustment of the decree. However, in the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal and directed that a complaint may be filed against the decree-holders, the present petitioners for fraudulently levying execution for the recovery of the amount which had already been recovered outside the Court. The decree-holders are aggrieved of this order of the learned Sessions Judge and have come up before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of the trial court regarding the fact that the amount arising out of the decree dated 10-8-65 had been adjusted in the second mortgage dated 26-1-70 has already been set aside by this Court by its order dated 20-2-80, there was no ground for the learned Sessions Judge to have directed the filing of the complaint for the prosecution of the decree-holders. It was also contended that this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge but he improperly brushed it aside. The learned counsel further contended that since then the parties have comprised and the matters have also been settled between them and the judgment-debtor does not wish that the decree-holders may be prosecuted and, therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside. 7. The Earned counsel for the non-petitioner did not refute these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the circumstances pointed out by him, I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the circumstances pointed out by him, I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. When this court by its order dated 20-2-80 had come to a conclusion that the executing court could not have gone into the question whether the amount under the decree had been adjusted in the second mortgage, the question of holding that the amount hid been so adjusted does not arise and, therefore the decree-holders cannot be prosecuted on the ground that they were guilty of levying execution in respect of an amount which had already been recovered. In the second place, when under Order 21 rule 2 sub-rule (3), an adjustment which has not been got recorded or certified cannot he recognised by the executing court and admittedly when the alleged adjustment of the decretal amount in the second mortgage has not thus been got certified or recorded, the decree holders may have been prompted to file an application for execution for the recovery of the uncertified amount and in these circumstances, also it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to prosecute again and, therefore, also the order of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. 9. Since the parties have also already compromised the matter, the prosecution of the decree-holders in these circumstances would also not be justified and necessary. 10. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 28-12-80 is set aside.Petition allowed. *******