ORDER Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 52 of 1983 in O.S. No. 62 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 62 of 1980. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil the respondent obtained a decree for specific performance of contract of sale with costs. He filed E.P.No.52 of 1983 for realising the said costs. The petitioner resisted the said execution proceedings on the ground that as per the decree he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,700 from the respondent and the costs may be set off against the said amount. The trial Court rejected the said contention on the ground that it is open to the petitioner to realise that amount at any time by separate proceedings and therefore it is not a ground on which he can refuse to pay the amount claimed in this execution petition. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner has filed the above revision petition. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that there are counter claims between the parties in the same decree the amount can be adjusted and the parties need not be driven to separate proceedings. His arguments are presumably based upon the provisions contained under Order 21, Rule 19, C.P.C., which says as follows: 19. Execution in case of cross-claim under same decree : Where application is made to a Court for the execution of a decree under which two parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other, then. (a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction for both, shall be entered upon the decree; and (b) if the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out only by the party entitled to the larger sum and for as much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered upon the decree. This rule is intended to prevent the execution of a decree in respect of sums due whether costs or otherwise under the same decree. This rule is intended to prevent the execution of a decree in respect of sums due whether costs or otherwise under the same decree. The question is whether costs awarded in a suit for specific performance of a decree to sell certain properties can be adjusted towards the amount payable by the decree-holder towards the purchase money. This question is directly answered by a decision of a Bench of this Court in Chinnammal v. Chidambara Kothanar 71 M.L.J. 506 : A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 626 : 44 L.W. 34, wherein it has been held: Where the plaintiff obtains a decree directing the defendant to execute a conveyance in his favour on his depositing a particular amount in Court, a deposit by the plaintiff of that amount less the amount due to the plaintiff under the said decree by way of costs, interest, etc., can be treated by the Court under its inherent jurisdiction as a valid deposit, the amount of that deposit having been arrived at by a deduction in respect of an equitable set-off by way of cross demands arising out of the same transaction. There are also other decisions of High Courts pointing out very forcibly that when under the same decree both the plaintiff's right and the defendant's liability are declared, it would be idle to drive the former to a separate proceeding to recover the costs. In this case the position of the parties is vice versa. Anyhow the same principle would be applied in so far as the execution of a decree is concerned. Mr. R.S. Subramani learned Counsel for the respondent, argues that the above decision of a Bench of this Court will not apply to the facts of the present case since in this case the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the decree for specific performance and the same is pending. Moreover he has defaulted to deposit the costs as per the orders of the appellate Court in that appeal and when he sought for interim stay in respect of the decree for specific performance. I feel that the pendency of the appeal has no bearing in so far as the present position in which the parties are situate. If the appeal is allowed certainly the rights of the parties will be worked out accordingly. I feel that the pendency of the appeal has no bearing in so far as the present position in which the parties are situate. If the appeal is allowed certainly the rights of the parties will be worked out accordingly. In any event that will not be a bar for invoking the provision under Order 21, Rule 19, C.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled to adjust costs from the amount payable by the respondent towards the decree for specific performance. Since the costs payable by the petitioner is lesser than the amount payable by the respondent the present execution petition is not sustainable. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. No costs.