S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) REFUSAL to adjust amount decreed in favour of petitioner in execution of decree for money by opposite party is grievance of petitioner in this Civil Revision. ( 2 ) PETITIONER filed a suit for money against opposite party where opposite party made a counter claim. On 16-3-1964, petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 10,723/- with interest at the rate of 6% pet annum and costs. In respect of claim of opposite party a preliminary decree for accounts was passed. Both parties preferred appeals. Appeal of opposite party against decree in favour of petitioner was dismissed on 29-2-1968. Appeal of petitioner against preliminary decree was allowed on 5-8-1970 and such decree was vacated. Opposite party did not challenge dismissal of his appeal and thus, decree against him for Rs. 10,723/- with interest at 6% per annum and costs became final. He, however, assailed appellate decree vacating the preliminary decree for accounts and Supreme Court reversed the appellate decree and confirmed the preliminary decree. Final decree was passed on 14-10-1976 for Rs. 5,206. 63 paise with 10% profit over the same. Petitioner did not challenge the same. Opposite party, however, claiming higher amount preferred an appeal. ( 3 ) ). Petitioner filed applications for execution of decree in his favour which were all dismissed. At that stage, opposite party filed application for execution of the final decree against petitioner which, was registered as Execution Case No. 37. of 1987. Petitioner filed fresh application for execution of the money decree which was registered as Execution Case No. 16 of 1979. Petitioner filed an application on 1-8-1980 in his execution proceeding for adjustment of the amount in final decree of opposite party. Opposite party objected to the executability of decree of petitioner as barred by limitation. Executing Court having rejected objection of opposite party, he challenged the order in Civil Revision where executing Court was directed to reconsider the objection of limitation afresh by order dated 9-5-1985. On reconsideration, executing Court sustained objection of opposite party to the executability of the decree on the ground of limitation by order dated 28-9-1985. Petitioner took steps for setting aside the order which was not accepted by the executing Court and was subsequently affirmed by this Court on 4-1-1990. On reconsideration, executing Court sustained objection of opposite party to the executability of the decree on the ground of limitation by order dated 28-9-1985. Petitioner took steps for setting aside the order which was not accepted by the executing Court and was subsequently affirmed by this Court on 4-1-1990. On 25-2-1987, claim of opposite party for higher amount in the final decree was partially accepted and the amount determined in appeal was higher than liability of opposite party. Opposite party who has appeared personally in this Civil Revision stated that he has approached Supreme Court to get still higher amount. ( 4 ) ON the partial success in appeal, opposite party amended the execution petition and filed amended copy of execution petition on 18-11-1989. After becoming unsuccessful to revive his execution proceeding, petitioner filed an application in execution case initiated by opposite party for adjustment of his decretal amount as provided in Order 21, Rule 19, C. P. C. The same having been rejected by the executing Court this civil Revision has been filed. ( 5 ) ORDER 21, Rule 19, C. P. C. reads as follows :-"r. 19. Execution in, case of cross-claims 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 so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum shall be entered upon the decree. A perusal of this provision makes it clear that for its application, it is necessary that under decree for execution of which an application has been made, two parties are entitled to receive money from each other where each party has a separate decree in his favour, Order 21, Rule 19, C. P. C. has no application. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid requirement it is to be examined if under the decree for execution of which application has been made by opposite party, petitioner is entitled to recover sums of money from opposite party. There is no dispute that the decree under execution is a final decree on accounting. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid requirement it is to be examined if under the decree for execution of which application has been made by opposite party, petitioner is entitled to recover sums of money from opposite party. There is no dispute that the decree under execution is a final decree on accounting. In the suit two decrees were passed, one for a specific sum payable by opposite party to the petitioner and, the other, a preliminary decree for accounts. In this background decree in favour of petitioner passed on 16-3-1964 or confirmed in appeal on 29-2-1968 with the preliminary decree for accounts passed on 16-3-1964 against which appeal of petitioner was pending is not a decree under which two parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other. Petitioner was alone entitled to recover money at that stage. Question of recovery of money from petitioner was inchoate as no final decree was made. ( 7 ) NORMALLY, each party is to execute decree in his favour but for Order 21, Rule 19, C. P. C. Therefore, application of the rule is envisaged where each party can execute his decree at the same time. Therefore, when two executable decrees in the same suit are passed at different times as in the present case Order 21, rule 19, C. P. C. is not attracted. ( 8 ) MR. H. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 1959 OJD 368 (Raja Sri Chandrabhanu Dev v. Digambar Nath ). In the said decision, both parties were entitled to recover sums from each other under the same decree the said decision would not be applicable to the present case. ( 9 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this Civil Revision which is accordingly, dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.