This revision is directed against the order dated 29-10-1986, passed by the Learned District Judge, Jammu in the execution proceedings filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein (hereinafter called the decree-holder). 2. The claims and counter claims of the parties were adjudicated upon by an Arbitrator, who ultimately on 30-04-1974, passed the award which was made rule of the Court and consequent decree came to be paused on 12-05-1977 by this Court. 3. By the decree several claims of each of the parties were allowed against each other in respect of several items . The Decree-holder became entitled to recover Rs.98,189/- from the respondent Union Of India in all, whereas Respondent Union of India was held entitled to recover Rs.2,66,561.73/- from the decree-holder. Thus as a result of the decree the decree-holder was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,282.73/- to Union of India the respondent in total satifaction of the decree. However, instead of Union of India the respondent, the execution was taken/filed by the decree-holder. The respondent admittedly contested the execution application of the decree-holder on two ground mainly. One that the decree stood satisfied because the balance amount which was to be paid by the decree-holder to the respondent has been adjusted out of the payment to be made by the respondent to the decree-holder and as such decree stands satisfied by the adjustment. Two, that application for execution was time barred. 4. The decree-holder took up the plea that the adjustment was not in accordance with Order 21 Rule 2 of C P.C as such could not be allowed. Secondly, the application was within time as the time would have started running from the date of application of the respondent for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. 5. Learned executing Court by the impugned order rejected the first plea put across by the decree-holder saying:- "For the aforementioned reason, I am convinced that Order 21 Rule 2 CPC has no application to the present case. This case is clearly one where after making the necessary arithmetical calculations from the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.1,68,282.73 to the respondent and cannot therefore, take out any execution." Rule 2 of Order 21 CPC reads as under:- "21. This case is clearly one where after making the necessary arithmetical calculations from the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.1,68,282.73 to the respondent and cannot therefore, take out any execution." Rule 2 of Order 21 CPC reads as under:- "21. (2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the carliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless, there has been a consequent failure of justice." 6. For attracting the provisions of Rule 2, the nature of the decree passed has to be seen to find out as to whether any amount is payable by a Judgement-Debtor to a decree-holder. Unless some amount is payable to the decree-holder by a Judgment-debtor, no question of adjustment can arise. Going by the nature of the decree passed in the case in hand ultimate liability to pay could only be fixed by arithmetical calculations because parties qua each other are simultaneously decree-holder and Judgment-debtor. The decree in its ultimate result holds the decree holder liable for payment of Rs.1,68,282.73/- to the respondent and in this view of the matter the present decree-holder could not have maintained the execution. 7. The respondent did not take the execution, as according to it, its claim arising out of decree stood satisfied after making adjustment of the amount which it had to pay to the decree-holder in connection with some other work and its final bill. The question of validity of such adjustment could be raised by the decree-holder only if the respondent had taken out an execution. It cannot arise at all in the execution taken by the decree-holder. Therefore, learned trial court was right in the circumstances of the case to hold that execution at the instance of the decree-holder was not maintainable. 8. Learned trial Court has also held the instant application for execution as time barred. Learned counsel raised the same plea, which the petitioner had taken up before the executing Court. I am in agreement with the learned Court below. There is nothing on record to show that any appeal against the decree in issue had been filed and disposed of, so as to change the date of the decree. Learned counsel raised the same plea, which the petitioner had taken up before the executing Court. I am in agreement with the learned Court below. There is nothing on record to show that any appeal against the decree in issue had been filed and disposed of, so as to change the date of the decree. The finding that execution was time barred does not call for any interference. 9. Therefore, there is no merit in revision as such the same is dismissed. @LN = 2004 (1) JKJ 569 [HC] HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR Rev. Pet. No. 76/88 The Honble Mr. Justice Syed Bashir-ud-Din Bashir Ahmed Sheikh Versus Ahsan Mir & Ors. BASHIR AHMED SHEIKH AHSAN MIR & ORS. Decided on 9.10.2003 Civil Procedure Code Order 47 & Order 5 Rule 20 -- Review against order of dismissal of CMP for restoration/recall of order of dismissal of appeal for default -- Application under Order 5, Rule 20 for substituted service allowed by Court but petitioner failed to deposit expenses for advertisement resulting in dismissal of CMP and appeal -- Review -- Once steps are not taken the dismissal of suit for non-prosecution cannot be said to be by mistake or error apparent on the face of record. An erroneous order cannot be a ground to question order in review.