H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff, Srinivasapura, rejecting the objection filed by the judgment debtor to the execution filed by the respondent. It is undisputed that the respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner in O. S. N 0. 26 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 4,000/- with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 9,532-75. The suit was decreed as prayed for after contest. Since the judgment debtor has failed to satisfy the decree, the plaintiff has filed an Execution Petition No. 16 of 1992 to recover the said amount. The execution petition was opposed by the judgment debtor on the ground that the decree has been fully satisfied as per the panchayat held in the village and that the decree-holder has executed a stamp receipt dated 20-10-1988 having received the decretal amount and that he undertook to report the same to the Court. ( 2 ) THE Court below proceeded to conduct an enquiry regarding the payment made. The judgment-debtor has examined 3 witnesses on his behalf and marked one receipt while the decree-holder has examined himself and marked one document. The learned Munsiff having regard to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 (3) CPC has overruled the objections. He has opined that it was open to the judgment debtor to sue for damages for recovery of money paid out of Court. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial Court has erred in ignoring the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 and Rule 2a. He has further contended that having held an enquiry, the learned Munsiff has erred in overruling his objection without giving a finding on his objection and therefore submits that the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. However, the learned counsel for the respondent justified the order of the Court below. ( 4 ) IN the light of these contentions, the short point that arises for consideration is whether there is a failure of exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below resulting in this order. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent has obtained a decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 9532-75. He has not paid the decretal amount in Court. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent has obtained a decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 9532-75. He has not paid the decretal amount in Court. Though the decree is passed on 30-7-1988, the decree holder has executed the same in 1992. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a panchayat in the village wherein the respondent has received the decretal amount in the presence of panchas and executed a karar receipt as per Annexure-A. This claim of the judgment debtor is disputed by the decree-holder. It is for the very purpose, the trial Court has posted the matter for enquiry. ( 6 ) ORDER 21 Rule 1 provides for modes of paying money under decree. Admittedly, the decretal amount is not paid in conformity with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC. The contention of the petitioner that the Court has not followed the mandatory provisions or Order 21 Rule 2 and Rule 2a has no merit. Order 21 Rule 2 provides that where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. ( 7 ) THERE is no such certificate by the decree-holder. ( 8 ) ORDER 21 Rule 2 (2) provides an alternative to the judgment debtor himself to inform the Court such payment or adjustment and apply to the Court in the case of failure of the decree-holder to certify the same. It also provides for notice to the decree-holder upon such information to the Court by the judgment debtor and if cause is not shown by the decree-holder to record the same. It is undisputed that the judgment debtor has not availed the benefit of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 (2) CPC. The amended provisions of Order 21 Rule 2a only provides the circumstance under which the Court shall record the payment or adjustment and nothing more. The right of the judgment-debtor to make an application under the rule is independent of whether or not the decree-holder reports satisfaction of the decree to the Court. The amended provisions of Order 21 Rule 2a only provides the circumstance under which the Court shall record the payment or adjustment and nothing more. The right of the judgment-debtor to make an application under the rule is independent of whether or not the decree-holder reports satisfaction of the decree to the Court. He cannot complain that the conduct whether fraudulent or otherwise of the decree-holder prevented him from making his application. (AIR 1973 Mysore 188 ). It is true that this provision causes great hardship to the judgment-debtor who pays the decretal amount outside the Court. But he has to necessarily follow the mandate of Law. ( 9 ) IT is held by this Court in AIR 1974 Karnataka 51, that the judgment-debtor is precluded from establishing by evidence an uncertified adjustment of the decree. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court in its order, the Executing Court cannot recognise any payment made outside the Court even if it is true, unless it certifies payment/ adjustment as required under Order 21, Rule 2 (2), C. P. C. The only alternative for the judgment-debtor is to sue the decree-holder for recovery of the said amount or for damages. In my opinion, this revision has no merit. Hence, the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .