SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22-1-1996 directing her to restore the possession of disputed property to respondent No. 3 and the order dated 13-2-1996 dismissing the revision by respondent No. 1 against the aforesaid order. 2. The petitioner is landlady of House No. B-10, New Agra, Respondent No. 3 is the tenant of the house in question. The petitioner filed Suit No. 4 of 1991 against respondent No. 3 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the ground that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent and made material alteration in the building. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 20-1- 1995 on the finding that respondent No. 3 made material alteration in the building. The version of the petitioner that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent was not accepted. Respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 60 of 1995 in the Court of District Judge, Agra. The District Judge while admitting the revision of respondent No. 3 granted stay order on 17-2-1995. The order reads as under: "admit. Summon the record of trial court and fix 1-5-95 for hearing. 5c is application for staying the operation of the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent is also present and he has no objection to stay the operation if the appellant (revisionist) deposit the entire decretal amount. Operation of order and judgment in Revision shall remain stayed provided the entire decretal amount is paid within 15, days. " This order was passed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner and he had no objection to the stay of the operation of the decree passed by the trial court. The revision was subsequently transferred to Special Judge (E. C. Act) Agra, respondent No. 4. After 17-2-1995 the next date fixed in the case was 1-5- 1995 and the case has been adjourned from time to time and is still pending. 3. There was never any dispute before respondent No. 4 that respondent No. 3 did not comply with the conditional stay order by depositing the decretal amount within 15 days from the date of passing of the stay order on 17-2-1995. The petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree in the court of Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Agra on 22-8-1995 registered as Case No. 15 of 1995. The petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree in the court of Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Agra on 22-8-1995 registered as Case No. 15 of 1995. In the execution application it was stated that the revision against the decree has been filed but in that revision no stay order has been granted. In the execution case the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 29- 8-1995. In the affidavit it was stated that Revision No. 66 of 1995 has been filed by the defendants which is pending in the Court of Special Judge (E. C. Act), Agra. In para 2 of the affidavit it was stated that the defendant/revisionist has not deposited any decretal amount nor any stay has been granted by the court. 4. Respondent No. 2, relying upon the averments made in the affidavit, directed for delivery of possession. On 4th January, 1996 the Amin took possession of the house in question from respondent No. 3 arid delivered it to the petitioner. Respon dent No. 3 objected to the delivery of possession on the ground that there was an interim stay order passed by the District Judge, Agra and the same is still operating and he had complied with the conditional order. The Amin, however, did not accept his contention and delivered possession of the property in question from respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. 5. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration of possession before the executing court on the allegation that on 17-2-1995 the revisional court had granted interim stay order on the condition that respondent No. 3 deposits the entire decretal amount within 15 days and he had deposited the entire decretal amount within 15 days. He had submitted a tender on 21st February, 1995 and deposited the amount on 23rd February, 1995. The petitioner filed objection stating that the respondent No. 3 had not deposited the amount within 15 days. As no notice of such deposit has been given to the petitioner, the application for restoration of possession was liable to be rejected. Respondent No. 2 held that respondent No. 3 had deposited the entire decretal amount within 15 days and had complied with the conditional order of stay. It was not obligatory on him to give notice of deposit to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 held that respondent No. 3 had deposited the entire decretal amount within 15 days and had complied with the conditional order of stay. It was not obligatory on him to give notice of deposit to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 by order dated 22-1-1996 directed for restoration of possession of house in question to respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed revision against this order and the revision has been dismissed by respondent No. 1. 6. The petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the respondent No. 3 complied with the conditional order passed by the District Judge on 17-2-1995 by depositing the decretal amount within 15 days from the date of order passed on 17-2-1995. Respondent No. 3 had submitted a tender for deposit ing the amount in the court. The Court had passed the tender on 21-2- 1995 and thereafter he deposited the amount in the bank in the name of the court and an endorsement was made by the bank on the said tender that the amount has been deposited. Respondent No. 3 filed the copy of the said tender bearing endorsement of the payment. The Court held that the entire decretal amount was paid within time. The petitioner in the writ petition has again disputed this fact. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. It has been stated that the court had passed tender on 21-2-1995 and the amount was to be deposited in the State Bank of India in the name of the court. The amount was deposited in the State Bank of India on 23-2-1995. A certificate of the bank has also been filed. A photostat copy of the tender containing endorsement of deposit has also been filed. This clear ly indicates that respondent No. 3 had deposited the entire decretal amount within time. There is no dispute that the amount deposited by respondent No. 3 did not cover the entire decretal amount. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order sheet dated 4th March, 1995 in Revision No. 66 of 1995 which reads as under : "the entire decretal amount is not paid by the revisionist. Put up for date fixed for orders. " This order sheet does not indicate that any enquiry was made from respondent No. 3 before making such observation in the order sheet. Put up for date fixed for orders. " This order sheet does not indicate that any enquiry was made from respondent No. 3 before making such observation in the order sheet. The question as to whether respondent No. 3 had deposited the entire decretal amount was within the knowledge of respondent No. 3 and this fact could have been ascertained only from him. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the order sheet does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer. After 17-2-1995 the next date fixed in the case was 1-5- 1995. There was no reason for the court to record the alleged order. On 4th March, 1995 it was a holiday for Eid-ul-Fitra and 8-3-1995 was Sunday. Moreover, 15 days expired on 6th March, 1995. There could not be any reason to make any order on 4th March, 1995. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had obtained answer to the questionair on 5-1-1996 after obtaining possession on 4th January, 1996. These questions have been answered by the clerk to Special Judge (E. C. Act), Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition indicate that the petitioner asked the question as to whether respondent No. 3 had complied with the conditional order dated 17-2-95 and the answer is "no". The petitioner further asked additional query as indicated in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whether any stay order has been granted by the Honble Court and the answer is "no. ". The reply to the query whether any stay order was granted and its answer "no" is manifestly erroneous. There was no dispute that the stay order was granted by the court. The second query as to whether the petitioner had complied with the conditional order, could be replied to only after making enquiry from respondent No. 3. The clerk concerned could not have replied to this query. Moreover, there was no reason to reply to this questionair when the possession was already taken by the petitioner and the matter was to be investigated by the Court. 9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was justified in filing application for execution on the ground that respon dent No. 3 had not complied with the conditional stay order as the petitioner was not given notice by respondent No. 3 that he had deposited the decretal amount. 9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was justified in filing application for execution on the ground that respon dent No. 3 had not complied with the conditional stay order as the petitioner was not given notice by respondent No. 3 that he had deposited the decretal amount. He had not furnished any documentary evidence before the court where the revision was pending that he had deposited the decretal amount and in absence of such a material on the record of the revisional court or any notice to him, the possession was rightly obtained by him in the execution proceeding and he cannot be directed to restore the possession to respondent No. 3. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provision of Order XXI, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Sub- rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XXI provides that "all money, payable under a decree shall be paid either (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank ; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing ; or (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. " Sub-rule (2) provides that "where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. 11. This provision is applicable in respect of payment of money decree and is not applicable when the question arises as to whether the conditional order has been satisfied by a party who is to get benefit under that order. The decree-holder who wants to execute the decree has to affirm that the judgment- debtor has not complied with the conditional stay order and therefore he is entitled to execute the decree. The court is bound to enquire from the judgment-debtor after giving him due notice as to whether the conditional order has been complied with. The fact whether the judgment-debtor has complied with the conditional order is within his knowledge and he can adduce the necessary evidence in respect thereof. 12. In Md. The court is bound to enquire from the judgment-debtor after giving him due notice as to whether the conditional order has been complied with. The fact whether the judgment-debtor has complied with the conditional order is within his knowledge and he can adduce the necessary evidence in respect thereof. 12. In Md. Rahimtulla Haji Joosab v. Esmail Allarakhia, AIR 1924 Privy Coun cil, 133, wherein a conditional decree was passed that the plaintiff-decree-holder should pay certain sum within a certain time and the payment was made by plaintiffs mortgagee instead of plaintiff by depositing the money in bank, it was held that the condition was satisfied by payment of the sum into the court and that the mortgagee, though he was not a party to the suit, and right to make the deposit. This decision was distinguished by various High Courts while considering the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXI, C. P. C. which provides that the judgment-debtor shall give notice of the deposit to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post. In view of this specific provision it was held that in case the decretal amount was deposited by the judgment-debtor still the decree shall not be satisfied totally and he will be liable for payment of interest awarded on the amount of decree. The Madras, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts held that interest does not cease to run till the decree-holder receives notice of payment into the court. 13. In Laxmi Narain Ganesh Das v. Ghasi Ram Dal Chand, AIR 1939 Nagpur 191, a different view was taken relying upon the Privy Council case Md. Rahimtulla Haji Joosab v. Esmail Allarakhia (supra ). 14. In Shah Rai Chand Amulakh v. Vora Najmuddin Ismailji, AIR 1955 Saurashtra 103, the decision of the Privy Council case was distinguished on the ground that it was a conditional decree. Similar view it was taken in Varki Ouseph v. Naraynan Parameshwara Panicker, AIR 1956 Trav Co. 46. 16. These decisions have no application as it is regarding the deposit of the decretal amount in pursuance of a decree and there is specific provision given under sub-rule (2) of Order XXI, Rule 1 to give notice to the decree-holder of the deposit made by mm. This question will not arise in a case where the court has passed a conditional order. This question will not arise in a case where the court has passed a conditional order. The decree-holder will have to assert that the judgment-debtor has not complied with the conditional stay order and he cannot assert this fact unless either the court or the decree-holder has made enquiry from the judgment-debtor. In case the amount is deposited on a tender which was passed by the court and the question remains as to whether he has in fact deposited the amount in bank after getting the tender passed, the judgment-debtor can produce necessary evidence in the matter. The case remains pending in the court and on the date of hearing or on enquiry being made in the basis of any application which may be filed in the same court, it can be ascertained as to whether the judgment-debtor has complied with the conditional stay orders passed by the court. 17. Even in cases where time bound order is passed by a court it is open to the judgment-debtor to satisfy that the interim stay order which was passed for a fixed period has been extended. The court is bound to make an enquiry from the judg ment-debtor before executing the decree. 18. It is strange in the present case that the executing court without issuing notice to respondent No. 3 and making enquiry from him executed the decree for eviction. In the execution application it was clearly indicated that revision was pend ing. The petitioner had indicated in the execution application that no interim stay order has been passed by the court in revision the same fact was stated by her in affidavit filed before the executing court. The interim stay order was certainly passed by the revisional court and further as to whether respondent No, 3 had complied with the conditional order could be replied to only after ascertaining from respon dent No. 3. 19. Respondent No. 2 is directed to take necessary steps in regard to the af fidavit filed by the petitioner wherein she stated that no interim stay order had been granted by the court in revision, Respondent No. 4 is further directed to make enquiry regarding the order-sheet dated 4th March, 1995 and the reply to the questionairs given to the petitioner on 5th January, 1996. 20. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that stay order operates when it is communicated to the court and he has placed reliance upon Mulraj v. Muni Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 , wherein distinction was made between an injunction order and the interim stay order. It was held that an order of injunction is generally issued to a party and it is forbidden from doing certain act and such party must have knowledge of the injunction order before it could be penalised for dis obeying it and in case of stay order as it is addressed to the court and prohibits it from proceeding further, as soon the court has knowledge of the order it is bound to obey. 21. In the present case it is not disputed that the interim stay order was passed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the order dated 21-2-1995 itself indicates that he had no objection to the stay of the operation of the order if respon dent No. 3 deposited the decretal amount. The interim order was passed in his presence. The revision is still pending and it has been adjourned on various dates. 22. In view of the discussion above there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The Registrar shall send a copy of this order to respondents Nos. 2 and 4 for taking necessary action as observed above. Petition dismissed. .