Judgment :- Revision petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.147 of 1990 in O.S.936 of 1985 of the Massifs Court, Quilon. First respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule shop room with arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was decreed in terms of the plaint. First respondent filed execution petition to get delivery of the property The revision petitioner contended that the execution petition is not maintainable as the certified copy of the decree was not produced. The executing court held that the last paragraph of the judgment produced can be used till the decree is drawn up as provided under Order 20 Rule 6(b) of the C.P.C. This order is challenged in the above C.R.P. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that without obtaining the certified copy of the decree first respondent could not have filed the execution petition and the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order. Counsel relied on Order 21Rulell (3) and contended that production of a certified copy of the decree is indispensable before proceeding with the execution. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is no specific provision in the Civil Procedure Code which makes it obligatory on the part of the decree-holder to produce certified copy of the decree before filing the execution petition and therefore the order of the Court below is not assailable. 3.' Order 20 Rule 6-A mandates that the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has been granted by the judgment. Rule 6-A(2) stipulates for the expeditious drawing of a decree and sets a period of fifteen days from the date of the judgment to draw the decree. It also states that the Court shall give a certificate to a party desirous of appealing against the decree that the decree has not been drawn up with reasons for the delay. With that certificate it is open to a party to file appeal. Order 20 Rule 6-A provides that appeal may be preferred against the decree without filing a copy of the decree and in such a case last paragraph of the judgment shall, for the purposes of Rule 1 of Order 41, be treated as a decree. With that certificate it is open to a party to file appeal. Order 20 Rule 6-A provides that appeal may be preferred against the decree without filing a copy of the decree and in such a case last paragraph of the judgment shall, for the purposes of Rule 1 of Order 41, be treated as a decree. Order 20 Rule 6-A(2)(b) is enacted to meet a situation where a decree-holder can execute the decree when the decree is not drawn up as provided under R.6-A(2). Rule 6-A(2)(b) states that so long as the decree is not drawn up the last paragraph of the judgment shall be deemed to be the decree for the purpose of execution and the party interested shall be entitled to apply for a copy of that paragraph only without being required to apply for a copy of the whole judgment. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that it will be open to a decree holder to file execution petition with the last paragraph of the judgment as Rule 6-A(2)(b) clearly states that last paragraph of the judgment shall be deemed to be the decree for the purpose of execution. Under 0.21 Rule 11(3) the Court may require the applicant to produce the certified copy of the decree. 0.20 Rule 6-A(2)(b) makes the position clear that when a decree is drawn up the last paragraph of the judgment shall cease to have the effect of a decree for the M purpose of execution or for any other purpose. 4. The Munsiff was justified in holding that last paragraph of the judgment can be used for the execution of the. decree as admittedly the decree was not drawn up. The order of the Munsiff does not suffer from any infirmity to be interfered by this Court under S.115 C.P.C. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.