Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Arockia Annai Rotary and Flour Mills by its owner Arockiasamy is the plaintiff in the money suit in O. S. No. 175 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai. After getting the suit decreed as against the defendant, the respondent herein, he filed an application for execution in E. P. No. 31 of 1992 before the above Court. The respondent objected to the said petition on the ground that the respondent also had obtained a decree for a larger amount in a separate suit against the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has obtained a decree for a lesser sum against the respondent and execution can be taken only by the holder of the decree for a larger sum, namely, the respondent after deducting the smaller sum and as such, the petition for execution filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in law and on facts. 2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai passed an order on 16-4-1993 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner by upholding the objection raised by the respondent herein. Hence, the revision. 3. Mr. Valliappan, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision, while assailing the impugned order, would contend that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, that the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 18 C.P.C. would apply only if both the decrees are executable decrees, that in the case on hand, the mortgage decree obtained by the respondent is only a preliminary decree and final decree is yet to be passed and that therefore, the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 18 C.P.C. are not attracted to the instant case. 4. In reply to the said submission, Mr. Sukumar, the counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that Order 21 Rule 19 C.P.C. would apply to the instant case and that when there are two cross-decree, the lesser of which cannot be executed so long as the greater decree remains unsatisfied having regard to the provisions of Order 21, Rules 18 and 19 of C.P.C. and that until the holder of the greater decree actually executed, the lesser decree cannot become effective and as such, the impugned order is sustainable both in law and on facts. 5. 5. In order to substantiate their respective pleas, both the counsel would cite some authorities. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a money suit in O. S. No. 175 of 1989 before the Civil Court against the respondent and obtained a decree. It is stated that the respondent also filed a mortgage suit against the petitioner in O. S. No. 73 of 1988 and got a preliminary decree. This was not challenged in the appellate Court. There is no dispute that the mortgage decree is for a larger amount. 7. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer Order 21, Rule 18 C.P.C. : "Execution in case of Cross-Decree - (1) where applications are made to a Court for the execution of cross-decree in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution on the same time by such Court, then (a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction shall be entered upon both decrees; and (b) the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered on the decree for the larger sum as well as satisfaction on the decree for the smaller sum." 8. The lower Court had come to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable, in the light of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 18 (1)(b) of C.P.C. It is true, Rule 18 (1)(b) says that when the two sums are unequal, the execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum. But, it shall be noticed that the condition precedent for invoking Section 18(1)(b) is, where applications are made to the Court for the execution of cross- decrees in separate suits on the same time by such Court. Therefore, the reading of Section 18(1)(b) would make it clear that this rule would apply only when both the parties in cross-decrees filed applications at the same time in the Court for the execution of the cross-decrees obtained in separate suits. 9. Therefore, the reading of Section 18(1)(b) would make it clear that this rule would apply only when both the parties in cross-decrees filed applications at the same time in the Court for the execution of the cross-decrees obtained in separate suits. 9. In other words, Order 21, Rule 18 of the Code applies only where both the decrees which are sought to be set off against each other are before the Court for execution. Each of the parties must have filed applications for execution from the holders of the two decrees. Each of the decrees must be capable of execution at the same time by the Court. If either of those conditions is not fulfilled, then the respondent cannot object to the execution petition by stating that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. While dealing with the similar facts, the Bombay High Court in Ramgopal Shriram v. Ramgopal Bhutada, 1934 AIR(Bombay) 307 would state as follows :- "The agreement between the parties clearly shows that it was to make a set-off as between these two cross-decrees, but it is important to note that this set-off was not a set-off which was contemplated by O. 21, R. 18, which states that such set-off between the cross-decrees is to be ordered by the executing Court, where applications were made to the Court for the execution of cross-decrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties. Admittedly here the only application made was the application in the first decree, and no application has been made with regard to the execution of the second decree at all. Therefore, O. 21, R. 18, would not apply and the set-off therefore would not be a set of as contemplated by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code." 11. It is also held in Srinivasa v. Venkatarama, 1933 AIR(Madras) 215 by referring Order 21, Rule 18 that right to set off cannot be claimed unless both decrees which are sought to be set off against each other are before the same Court for execution. 12. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner is only on mortgage. A decree obtained on the footing of a mortgage is not a decree for payment of money and cannot be set off against a simple money decree. 12. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner is only on mortgage. A decree obtained on the footing of a mortgage is not a decree for payment of money and cannot be set off against a simple money decree. Order 21, Rule 18 has no application to such a case as the decree-holders do not fill the same character. In order to attract the provisions of Order 21, Rule 18, it is necessary that the decrees sought to be set off against each other must be decrees for payment of money. This legal position is clear as laid down in Nagesar Ram v. Rajnet Ram, 1936 AIR(All) 639. 13. It is also held in Beant Lal v. Mt. Nihal Devi, 1933 AIR(Lahore) 372, that according to Order 21, Rule 18 a decree to be adjusted by set off must be capable of execution at the time when the adjustment is made. 14. In the light of the above principles on the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 18 (1), the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for execution cannot be said to be sustained in law. 15. The counsel for the respondent would cite the decisions in Ukkali v. Kelu Nayar, 1942 AIR(Madras) 399 and Nachimuthu Chetty v. Palani Ammal (1943) 2 Mad LJ 596 : 1944 AIR(Madras) 149). 16. It is held by this Court in (1943) 2 Mad LJ 596 : 1944 AIR(Madras) 149) (supra), that the money decree-holder can under Order 21, Rules 18 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code have the whole of the amount of the mortgage decree set off as against his own decree. In the said case, money decree against the mortgage decree was for a larger sum. That is not the case here. Vice versa it is not applicable to this case. Moreover, admittedly, there is no execution petition filed by the respondent during the relevant time before the lower Court. 1942 AIR(Madras) 399 also would not be of any help to the respondent, which deals with Order 21, Rules 18 and 19, since there are no execution petitions by the respective parties pending at the same time. 17. In view the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The revision is allowed. No costs. Revision allowed.