ORDER N.K. Mody, J. Petitioner by Ms. M. Ravindran, advocate. None for the Respondents, though served. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2007 passed by XIII Additional District Judge, Indore in Execution Case No. 57-B/99/04, whereby application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 68,120/-, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 57-B/99 and the same was decreed on 16-9-2004 whereby it was directed that Respondent No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 45,822/- to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 along with interest ' 6% P.A. w.e.f. 13-5-1998. Petitioner was also the power of attorney of Respondent No. 2. On 9-10-2004 execution petition was filed by the Petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as power of attorney. On 19-10-2004 lespondent No. 2 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court, wherein it was alleged that Respondent No. 2 has received the decretal amount from Respondent No. 1, therefore, execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. In reply it was alleged by the Petitioner that false receipts have been filed about the payment of decretal amount. It was alleged that the application has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 to frustrate the genuine claim of the Petitioner. It was alleged that Respondent No. 2 was not authorised to take the entire decretal amount on behalf of Petitioner. Reply was submitted by the Respondent No. 1 on 28-9-2005, wherein it was alleged that entire decretal amount has been paid. After hearing the parties, learned Court below allowed the application and dismissed the execution petition, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. After hearing the parties, learned Court below allowed the application and dismissed the execution petition, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since execution petition was filed by the Petitioner in his personal capacity and also on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as power of attorney, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Court below to allow the application filed by Respondent No. 2, wherein it was alleged that execution petition be dismissed in full satisfaction. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is against the law, which deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 4. Order XXI, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure deals with the application for execution by joint decree-holder. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure in case where decree has been passed jointly in favour of more than one person, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, anyone can apply for the execution of whole decree for the benefit of all. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure where the Court finds sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this Rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application. 5. In the matter of Hasmatullah v. Sunil Kumar 1990 (1) MPWN 36 this Court has held that one of the decree holder cannot give valid discharge. In the matter of Valchand Gulabchand Shah v. Manekbai Hirachand Shah : AIR 1953 Bom 137 Bombay High Court has observed that if the shares of the decree-holders are apparent on the face of the decree either expressly or by necessary implication, it is not strictly speaking a joint decree. In such a case, each decree-holder can take out execution in respect of his own share. In such a case, each decree-holder can take out execution in respect of his own share. But where the shares of the respective decree-holders are not apparent on the face of the decree, either expressly or by necessary implication, the decree which is sought to be executed is a joint decree and the judgment-debtor must render satisfaction to the whole body of the decree-holders. It was further observed that payment of one of the several joint decree-holders cannot be recognised as a payment to all (unless he is authorised to receive such payment on behalf of all), and does not amount to a 'pro tanto' satisfaction even to the extent of what is regarded to be the share in the decree of the decree-holder who receives payment. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the remaining decree-holders can maintain the darkhast only to the extent of their own share in the decree. The remaining decree-holders are entitled to execute the whole decree. It is true that this view may result in double payment having to be made by the judgment-debtors, but if they have to make such double payment, they may be in a position to recover from the other decree-holder the amount which they wrongly paid to him. In the matter of Botla Venkata Subba Rao v. Gonguntia Peda Papayya : AIR 1978 AP 238 Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that one of several joint decree-holders is not competent to grant full discharge of the decree out of Court or to certify to the Court complete satisfaction of more then his own share of the decree without the concurrence of the other decree-holders. If there are two or more decree-holders and the decree is passed jointly in favour of all of them, then obviously payment must be made to each of them his respective share from out of the decretal amount or all of them should receive the decretal amount jointly in order to give a valid discharge of the decree. Thus, if the entire decretal amount is paid to one of them such a payment does not bind the other decree-holders and as such it does not give a valid discharge of the decree. But if the decree-holder receives it, with the authorisation of the other decree-holder, such a payment can give a valid discharge, since it can be treated as payment to all. But if the decree-holder receives it, with the authorisation of the other decree-holder, such a payment can give a valid discharge, since it can be treated as payment to all. In the matter of Shital Prasad v. Dhan Kumar AIR 1974 All 174 Allahabad High Court observed that Order 21, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure is not a provision which entitled one of the decree-holders, maintaining the execution application on behalf of the entire body of decree-holders, to agree to a variation or curtailment of the rights of the, decree-holders under the decree. The said provision is for the benefit of the decree-holders, not in derogation of their rights. The mere fact that one of the decree-holders was doing Pairavi in the execution proceedings on behalf of the other decree-holders cannot therefore, lead to the inference that he was also entitled to agree to variations or a curtailment of the rights of the decree-holders under the decree. One out of several decree-holders needs to have special, specific authorisation, from the other decree-holders to enter into a compromise or adjustment on behalf of the other decree-holders. 6. Undisputedly, in the present case execution petition was filed by the Petitioner in his personal capacity and also as power of attorney of Respondent No. 2. Alleged payment made by the Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 is the payment out of Court. Rule (2) of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure lays down that in case money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, decree holder has to certify such payment of adjustment to the Court whose duty is to execute the decree and the Court shall record the same accordingly. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule (2) of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure judgment-debtor has to inform the Court of such payment or adjustment and apply the Court. As per Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 2 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure no payment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment debtor unless the payment is made in the manner provided in Rule 1 and payment is admitted by or on behalf of decree holder. 7. Respondent No. 2 was having no authority on behalf of Petitioner. 7. Respondent No. 2 was having no authority on behalf of Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 2 was having no authority to receive the decretal amount out of the court on behalf of himself and also on behalf of Petitioner. Similarly amount which has been alleged to have been paid by Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 is not in accordance with Order XXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. In view of this, petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is set aside with a direction to the learned Court below to proceed with the execution petition. 8. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.