JUDGMENT 1. - An application under Order 24 rule 1 C.RC. was made by the revision petitioner before the trial court offering to pay a certain amount which according to the revision petitioner was due against him. The court has rejected that application observing that whatever objections have to be taken by the parties, the same can be taken in the pleadings. 2. Obviously, the trial court has committed a patent error in rejecting the application. All that order 24 Rule 1 C.P.C. provides is that debt in any suit to recover a debt or damages may, at any stage of the suit, deposit in the court such sum of money as he considers satisfaction in full of the claim. So far as deposit of rent is concerned, the provision may not strictly be applicable because whether it is a suit for recovery of debt or damages would be not beyond doubt and it could also be said that the money was not being deposited in satisfaction in full of the claim. However, the fact remains that whatever money was offered to the court towards even the partial satisfaction of the demand made by the plaintiff, there was no reason why the Court should have rejected the offer. The money could be deposited and the effect of such deposit on the rival claims of the parties could be decided at a later stage whenever occasion stet. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the learned trial court is directed to accept the payment and decide the question of its effect on the suit later on whenever such occasion arises. 3. The revision petition stands disposed of as indicated above.Revision Disposed As Above. *******