JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - Decree-Holder is the petitioner arising out of an application u/s 47, CPC. There was an arbitration proceeding in between the parties and the award of the arbitrator was made a rule of the Court in Title Suit No. 243 of 1936. Decree-Holder filed the application execution of the decree which was numbered as Execution Case No. 103 of 1988. Judgment-Debtor filed a petition u/s 47, CPC challenging the executability of the decree under various grounds. One of the specific averments in the said petition is to the effect that in 2(c) C. C. Case No. 209 of 1986 the S. D. J. M., Cuttack had passed an order directing the J. Dr. to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,307.35 towards the liability of the D. Hr. under the Labour Contract Act and the same being a statutory liability the decree-holder is entitled to adjust the same from the decree of the Decree-Holder. It was further stated that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 65,303.68 by way of a Bank draft on 22-11-1988 in the said Court and the same being also a statutory liability, is also to be adjusted towards the decretal dues i.e. the Judgment Debtor prayed for adjustment of Rs. 1,30,614.72. It was further prayed in the petition that if any other sum is legally payable to the Decree Holder, the same may be determined by the Court. 2. The Decree Holder filed his objection stating therein that the Judgment Debtor cannot challenge the validity of the decree in Title Suit No. 243 of 1936 in the execution proceeding. The Decree Holder further submitted that the Judgment Debtor is not entitled to deduct any sum from the dues of the Decree Holder as the said sum of Rs. 1,30 614.72 had been deducted earlier and the same is not liable to be adjusted again. The executing Court after perusing the documents filed before it, came to the conclusion that since the Judgment Debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,614.72 in 2(c) C, C. Case No, 209 of 1986 and the same having been paid towards statutory liability of the Decree Holder, the same amount should be adjusted towards satisfaction of the decree and the decree passed in Title Suit No. 24 3 of 1986 is executable and enforceable for rest of the decretal dues. 1,30,614.72 in 2(c) C, C. Case No, 209 of 1986 and the same having been paid towards statutory liability of the Decree Holder, the same amount should be adjusted towards satisfaction of the decree and the decree passed in Title Suit No. 24 3 of 1986 is executable and enforceable for rest of the decretal dues. This order passed u/s 47, CPC is assailed in this Civil Revision. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a proceeding u/s 47, CPC, the Court cannot adjust any amount and deduct it from the decretal dues. Order 21, Rule 2, CPC, specifically provides the mode for such adjustment. Art. 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 specifies period of limitation of 30 days from the date of payment, and a time-barred payment cannot be adjusted from the decretal dues in the execution proceeding. 4. I find much force in the contentions of learned counsel of the petitioner. Order 21 Rule 2, CPC, prescribes the procedure to be followed when any payment is made out of the Court to the Decree Holder. Order 21, Rule 2(3) CPC, mandates payment of adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded under Order 21, Rule 2, CPC, shall not be recognised by any Court executing the decree. Admittedly, in this case the Decree Holder had not certified such payment or adjustment to Court and no such order has been recorded as visualised under Order 21, Rule 2(1) CPC. In given case, where Decree Holder does not certify any adjustment out of Court, then Order 21, Rule, 2(2) CPC entitles the Judgment Debtor to inform the Court of such payment for adjustment and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the Decree Holder to show cause and thereafter authorises the Court to record that such sum is adjustable provided the conditions under Order 21, Rule 2(2-A) are satisfied. In the case at hand, neither the Decree Holder has certified the adjustment nor the Judgment Debtor had applied the Court to record adjustment in accordance with Order 21, Rule 2(2), CPC. But by reading the application u/s 47 CPC, it is clear that the Judgment Debtor had prayed for adjustment of the statutory dues paid by him on behalf of the Decree Holder. Therefore, there is no adjudication as par the procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 2, CPC. But by reading the application u/s 47 CPC, it is clear that the Judgment Debtor had prayed for adjustment of the statutory dues paid by him on behalf of the Decree Holder. Therefore, there is no adjudication as par the procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 2, CPC. Without following any such procedure the Court has directed that the Decree Holder shall be entitled to balance decretal dues after deducting Rs. 1,30,714.72 and while passing such order, the executing Court has not taken in to consideration the mandates under Order 21, Rule 2 (2-A), CPC. 5. In that view of the matter, the direction of the executing Court for adjustment which was not certified nor recorded as per the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2(1) and (2) CPC. and in view of the mandates of Order 21, Rule 2(3), CPC, is not sustainable. 6. After going through the application u/s 47, CPC. I find that though the nomenclature of the petition is u/s 47 CPC, prayer has been made for adjustment. The trial Court shall treat the application u/s 47 CPC, as an application under Order 21, Rule 2(2) CPC and issue notice to the Decree Holder in accordance with that provision and shall adjudicate the application as provided under Order 21, Rule 2(2) read with Order 21 Rule 2(2-A) CPC. 7. While disposing of the said application under 21, Rule, 2CPC, the trial Court shall also see that any of the payment which is sought to be adjusted is barred under Saw of Limitation or not. The period of limitation for an application by the Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 2(2) CPC. is governed by Art. 125 of the Limitation Act. Art. 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of 30 days from the date when the payment or adjustment is made for making the application. If the application is filed beyond the period of limitation for adjustment, then the same cannot be allowed. This view of mine finds support from the case of Gangadhar Prasad Ray v. Nabakrushna Mohanty and Ors. 52(1931) CLT 306. If the application is filed beyond the period of limitation for adjustment, then the same cannot be allowed. This view of mine finds support from the case of Gangadhar Prasad Ray v. Nabakrushna Mohanty and Ors. 52(1931) CLT 306. Therefore, even if any payment had been made by the Judgment Debtor towards satisfaction of the statutory liability of the Decree Holder, if the application was beyond 30 days from the date of payment of such statutory liability, then the same is not adjustable or cannot be certified by the Court under Order 21, Rule 2(2) CPC and Order 21, Rule 2(3) CPC, being a bar, the Court cannot take notice of such adjustment. Learned trial Court shall proceed treating the application u/s 47 CPC, to be an application under Order 21,Rule 2(2) CPC, and shall proceed in acccordance with law and the procedure laid down under Order 21, Rule 2 CPC and Art. 125 of the Limitation Act keeping in view my aforesaid observations. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed, order dated 18-6-1990 passed in Misc. Case No. 551 of 1988 is set aside and the Misc. Case is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed