ORDER The petitioner challenges the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, through which the E.P. filed by the petitioner was closed by recording full satisfaction. 2. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.705 of 1996 before, the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, against the respondent herein, The O.P. was allowed through order dated 27-10-2000 awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, with interest at 12% per annum. Alleging that the obligation under the decree passed in the O.P. was not discharged by the respondent, the petitioner filed E.P.No.95 of 2000. The petitioner sought for arrest of the respondent, alleging that in spite of possessing sufficient means, he has not chosen to comply with the decree. 3. The respondent, on the other hand, filed E.A.No.44 of 2001 under Rule 15 of Order 21, read with Section 151 C.P.C., to record full satisfaction. He pleaded that on receipt of the notice in the E.P., he compromised the matter with the petitioner on the intervention of the elders of the village, and that in full satisfaction of the decree, he paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/to the petitioner. It was alleged that though the petitioner had undertaken to file a Memo of full satisfaction, into the Executing Court, he failed to do so. Pleading that the further proceedings are untenable, he filed the present E.A. 4. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. Respondent examined R.Ws. 1 to 4 and filed Exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked. Through the order impugned, the Executing Court allowed the EANo.44 of2001, and recorded full satisfaction. Consequently it terminated the E.P. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent fabricated the receipts - Exs. B-1 and B-2 depicting satisfaction of the decree and unfortunately the Executing Court had taken them, on their face value. He submits that unless the amount paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder is certified by the Court in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 21, the Court cannot take cognizance of the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client had adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his plea that the decree was satisfied and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client had adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his plea that the decree was satisfied and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. 7. The only controversy in the revision petition was as to whether the respondent herein satisfied the decree passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.705 of 1996. 8. The petitioner filed E.P.No.95 of 2000 alleging that the decree was not satisfied and sought for the arrest of the respondent. The latter, on the other hand, pleaded that the entire decree was satisfied. Both of them have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. 9. The plea of the respondent is that the amount was paid outside the Court, after the E.P. was filed. Whenever a judgment debtor pleads that he had paid the decretal amount in its entirety, or in part, he can claim the benefit of such payment, if only it was certified as provided for under Rule 2 of Order 21. The said provision reads as under:- "2. Payment out of Court to decree-holder- (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or a decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, 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. (2) The judgment-debtor or any person who has become surety for the judgment debtor also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on day to be fixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall record the same accordingly. [(2A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless- (a) the payment is made in the manner provided in rule 1; or (b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or (c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of, the decree-holder in his reply to the notice given under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, or before the Court.] (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree." 10. From the above provision, it is clear that for recognition of the satisfaction of the decree, the judgment debtor must inform the Court, of the payment, or adjustment, by filing an application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order21. The limitation for filing an application to record satisfaction of the decree is thirty (30) days from the date of making the payment or adjustment under Article 125 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Rule 2-A mandates that no payment or adjustment shall be recorded unless the payment has been made as provided in Rule 1 i.e., by depositing into the Court or by sending through Money Order or tendered in any other manner stipulated under the decree. The further requirement is that the payment or adjustment must be proved by the documentary evidence and that the adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf of the decree holder. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, prohibits recognition of any payment or adjustment unless it is certified or recorded. [See Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain1]. 11. Even while the further steps in E.P.No.95 of 2000 were in contemplation, the respondent filed E.A.No.44 of 2001 for recording full satisfaction. The application was filed under Rule 15 of Order 21. The said provision has no application to the facts of the present case. Rule 15 of Order 21 deals with the application for execution by a joint decree holder and the prescribed procedure therefor. It is not known how the said provision was invoked. The only provision under which the application for recording satisfaction can be filed, is Rule 2 of Order 21. It is rather unfortunate that the Tribunal, which is headed by an officer of the rank of a District Judge, did not even care to verify this fundamental requirement. 12. It is not known how the said provision was invoked. The only provision under which the application for recording satisfaction can be filed, is Rule 2 of Order 21. It is rather unfortunate that the Tribunal, which is headed by an officer of the rank of a District Judge, did not even care to verify this fundamental requirement. 12. Even assuming that the respondent had quoted a wrong provision and the application is to be treated as one filed under Rule 2 of Order 21, the first and foremost requirement was to see whether it was presented within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the alleged payment or adjustment. Nowhere in the order, running into several pages, the date of the alleged payment is mentioned. The benefit of a decree should not have been defeated in such a casual and callous manner. In the order under revision, no reference was made by the Tribunal to the procedure stipulated under Rule 2 of Order21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be considered afresh, on the lines indicated above. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 9-7-2002 is set aside and the E.P. is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It shall be open to the parties to urge such contentions as are open to them before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.