ORDER 1. Petitioner/decree holder has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2013 passed in MJC No.37/2013 by the Additional District Judge, Kannod, District Dewas. 2. Facts of the case as under : Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession and compensation for the agricultural land survey No.14/2 area 0.243 hectares. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.1-A/1997. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2004 the suit was dismissed. Thereafter plaintiff filed Civil First Appeal No.6-A/2006 and the same was partly allowed by judgment and decree dated 20.9.2006 and declared that plaintiff is entitled to get possession of land bearing Survey No.14/2 area 0.243 hectares from defendants No.1, 2 and 3. 3. After the said judgment in favour of the plaintiff he filed execution proceeding before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Kannod. Vide order dated 25.8.2011 notice was issued to the judgment debtor/defendants. Vide order dated 18.10.2011 notice was issued to the Patwari for demarcation and possession warrant was issued to the defendants and the case was directed to be fixed on 18.11.2011 for the report of warrant. 4. On 18.11.2011 plaintiff was present along with counsel in the Court and stated that he does not want to continue any proceeding against the judgment debtor and on making such statement Court has fixed the case before the Mega Lok Adalat on 19.11.2011. On the right side of the order sheet plaintiff/decree holder himself has recorded that he did not want to continue with the proceeding and the case be dismissed. 5. On 19.11.2011 neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and on the basis of the order sheet dated 18.11.2011 learned Court has closed the execution proceedings and sent the record to the record room. 6. After two orders plaintiff again filed execution proceedings in which notice was issued and counsel for the judgment debtor appeared. Counsel for the judgment debtor has raised the objection that execution proceedings is not maintainable as earlier vide order dated 19.11.2011 the execution proceedings were closed. Learned executing Court vide order dated 9.10.2013 has dismissed the executing proceedings in view of the order dated 19.11.2011. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order decree holder filed an appeal under Order 43 rule 1 CPC in which vide order dated 20.12.2013 the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, hence the present petition before this Court. 8. Learned executing Court vide order dated 9.10.2013 has dismissed the executing proceedings in view of the order dated 19.11.2011. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order decree holder filed an appeal under Order 43 rule 1 CPC in which vide order dated 20.12.2013 the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, hence the present petition before this Court. 8. At the very outset Shri Garg, learned senior counsel submits that the miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 9.10.2013 was not maintainable, therefore, petitioner is assailing the order dated 9.10.2013 in this petition. Shri Garg on behalf of the petitioner submitted that execution proceedings cannot be closed unless the executing Court records its satisfaction that the decree has been satisfied. In the present case the decree has not been satisfied as no possession was handed over to the plaintiff, therefore, he can file as many as execution proceedings unless the possession is handed over to the plaintiff and decree is satisfied. The principle of res judicata would not apply in execution proceedings. The executing Court has committed error while rejecting the second execution application when in the order dated 19.11.2011 the Court has not recorded that the decree has been satisfied. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of Rajeev Khandelwal v. Arun Pannalal, reported in 1988 JLJ 416 , and Bherulal v. Daulal, reported in 1988 (II) MPWN 32. He further submits that Lok Adalat has no power to adjudicate the dispute. He has to record the compromise or settlement between the parties and in the present case Mega Lok Adalat on 19.11.2011 has not recorded any settlement between the parties, therefore, the said order is not an order in the eye of law. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 . 9. Per contra Shri Dave, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 18.11.2011 plaintiff decree holder himself has recorded in writing that he does not want to continue with the execution proceedings, therefore, he did not appear on 19.11.2011 before the Mega Lok Adalat. 9. Per contra Shri Dave, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 18.11.2011 plaintiff decree holder himself has recorded in writing that he does not want to continue with the execution proceedings, therefore, he did not appear on 19.11.2011 before the Mega Lok Adalat. From the orders dated 11.11.2011 and 19.11.2011 it is clear that plaintiff is satisfied with the decree and he himself made a statement he does not want to continue with the execution proceedings, therefore, he has no right to file second execution proceeding and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Under Order 22 rule 2 CPC a decree holder is required to certify the satisfaction of a decree in whole or in part and on such information the executing Court shall record the same accordingly. In the present case petitioner being a decree holder has only made a statement that he does not want to continue with the execution proceeding and on his statement the Lok Adalat has dismissed the application. Neither the petitioner has specifically made a statement about the satisfaction of the decree nor the trial Court has recorded its satisfaction. 11. That the petitioner filed a second application for execution which was dismissed by the executing Court as not maintainable. Shri Dave, learned counsel on behalf of the judgment debtor/respondent has vehemently argued that when earlier application has been dismissed the second application is not maintainable. The question of law which requires consideration is “whether the decree holder can file repeat application for execution proceeding until the decree is satisfied ?” 12. Order 21 rule 10 of CPC provides that where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the Court which has passed the decree. Under sub-rule (1) of rule 11 CPC where a decree is for the payment of money oral application is permissible. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 11 every application for execution of a decree shall be in writing. Under sub-rule (1) of rule 11 CPC where a decree is for the payment of money oral application is permissible. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 11 every application for execution of a decree shall be in writing. Sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of Order 21 is reproduced below :- (2) Written application.-- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to be satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names of the parties; (c) the date of the decree; (d) whether any, appeal has been preferred from the decree; (e) Whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (f) whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results; (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree , or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; and (j) the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required whether - (i) by the delivery of any property specifically decreed; (ii) by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property; (iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person; (iv) by the appointment of a receiver; (v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require. 13. From perusal of this sub-rule (2) it is crystal clear that the word “every application” is used instead of the word “an application”, therefore, this provision is not restricted to one application. This sub-rule (2) further provides that the application shall contain certain particulars in tabular form. Sub-rule (2)(f) is in respect of whether if any previous application has been made for execution of decree and the date of such application and their results. This sub-rule (2) further provides that the application shall contain certain particulars in tabular form. Sub-rule (2)(f) is in respect of whether if any previous application has been made for execution of decree and the date of such application and their results. It means that the decree holder can file number of applications for execution of a decree. Therefore, in view of Order 21 rule 11(2) the subsequent application is also maintainable before the executing Court. Learned executing Court vide order dated 9.10.2013 has wrongly dismissed the application for execution as not maintainable. 14. That the executing Court dismissed the first executing proceeding in absence of the decree holder and his counsel. The decree holder is also having a remedy to apply for setting aside the same order. Order 21 rule 105(2) provides that the executing Court in absence of application may adjourn or dismiss the application and if the application is dismissed under sub-rule (2) then under rule 106 the applicant may apply to the Court for setting aside of the order, therefore, in the present case petitioner had remedy either to file a repeat application or pray for setting aside of the order dated 19.11.2011 before the same Court under Order 21 rule 105 CPC. The petitioner/decree holder has opted to file repeat application and the same is permissible under the law. 15. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the orders dated 9.10.2013 and 20.12.2013 are hereby set aside.