Judgment Being aggrieved by the order dated 19-2-2011 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Mandleshwar in Civil Ex. Case No. 202-A/97-08, whereby execution filed by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was dismissed, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that execution petition was filed by the petitioners on 5-11-2003 with a prayer to execute the decree, which was passed in compromise in Civil Suit No. 202-A/96. According to said compromise decree respondent was to pay a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- to the petitioners on or before 31-12-2000 in two instalments and in turn deceased Chhatarsingh, Kailash and deceased Bhagatsingh predecessor-in-title of petitioners were to execute the sale deed. In the said decree it was also mentioned that in case the respondent fails to pay the amount before the specified date then the respondent shall be further liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per year and the petitioners shall be entitled to get the possession of the suit property. On 5-11-2003 an execution petition was filed by the petitioners, wherein it was alleged that respondent has not paid the amount as per the decree dated 22-4-1999, therefore, petitioners be put into possession. The application was opposed by the respondent alleging that the amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- was paid on different-different dates. Since there was dispute between the parties relating to payment of Rs. 61,000/- made on 15-4-2000 and Rs. 4,000/- on 11-1-2000, therefore, learned executing Court recorded the evidence and upheld the objection raised by the respondent and dismissed the execution petition, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Shri B. I. Mehta, learned counsel for petitioners, submit that impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that since it was alleged that the receipt dated 15-4-2000 and 11-1-2000 bears the signature of Chhatarsingh, therefore, petitioners be permitted to examine handwriting expert. It is submitted that thrice the application was dismissed. To prove these documents respondent examined himself and also the witnesses of the receipt namely Mansingh, Mohansingh, Shankarsingh and Mohan. It is submitted that none of the witnesses proved the signature of Chhatarsingh, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below to prove the documents Ex. P/1 and P/2 before the learned executing Court, which is marked before this Court as Ex. It is submitted that none of the witnesses proved the signature of Chhatarsingh, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below to prove the documents Ex. P/1 and P/2 before the learned executing Court, which is marked before this Court as Ex. P/ll, which bears the signature of Chhatarsingh. It is submitted that learned Court below committed error in exercising powers under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act in comparing the signature of deceased Chhatarsingh. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 4. Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for respondent, submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Court below found that the document Ex.P/1 and P/2 bears the signature of deceased Chhatarsingh. It is submitted that from the evidence it is also proved that document bears signature of deceased Chhatarsingh. It is submitted that the entire amount has been paid, therefore, learned Court below rightly dismissed the execution petition filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that respondent has examined himself and also the witnesses Ramsingh, Mohansingh, Shankarsingh and Mohan. It is evident that for proving the signatures Ex.P/1 and P/2 were filed but none of the witness has proved the signature of Chhatarsingh. It is submitted that signature of these witnesses were marked as A to A, but in the same manner signature of deceased Chhatarsingh were not marked. It is true that the Court is having ample power to compare the signature by exercising powers under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act but for that Court is required to have the disputed and admitted signatures before it. Since none of the witness has stated that Ex.P/1 and P/2 bears the signature of deceased Chhatarsingh, therefore, in the circumstances of the case the comparison which was made by learned executing Court was not in accordance with law. Apart from this so far as payment relating to satisfaction of decree is concerned, Rule 2 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code deals with payment out of Court to decree-holder. Apart from this so far as payment relating to satisfaction of decree is concerned, Rule 2 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code deals with payment out of Court to decree-holder. According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, 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 is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 lays down that 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 a 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. Sub-rule (A) of Rule 2 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, which has been inserted by amendment No. 104 of 1976 lays down that 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 sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXI lays down that the payment of adjustment which is not certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree. The object of this rule is to ensure that the Court executing the decree shall not be troubled with any dispute between the parties with regard to any payments or adjustment unless the same has been duly certified or recorded. Recording of payment order adjustment has to be made under sub-rule (2) and in doing so, the Court is subjected to the restriction provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2. Sub-rule (2-A) is inserted to operate as a proviso to sub-rule (2). Recording of payment order adjustment has to be made under sub-rule (2) and in doing so, the Court is subjected to the restriction provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2. Sub-rule (2-A) is inserted to operate as a proviso to sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (3) imposes a bar upon the Court executing the decree and prevents it from recognising any payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded as required by the rule. 6. From perusal of the order impugned herein it is evident that the learned executing Court has decided the objections filed by the respondent without taking into consideration the provision in this regard. 7. In view of this petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the executing Court to re-decide the objection keeping in view the provision in this regard. Petition allowed.