JUDGMENT : This civil revision application filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Court permitting the non-applicants-original defendants to deposit the amount of costs of Rs. 4000/- that were imposed while granting them an opportunity to contest the suit. 2. Facts in brief are that the applicant is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for recovery of possession of an open piece of land against the non-applicants herein. That suit came to be decreed on 19-12-2014. The non-applicants filed an appeal challenging that decree. According to them they did not have proper opportunity to defend the suit. The Appellate Court by its judgment dated 4-10-2017 allowed the appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff. The amount of costs were to be paid within period of two weeks failing which it was ordered that the appeal would stand dismissed. It was further observed that if the costs were paid, the parties would appear before the trial Court on 26-10-2017 after which the suit would be decided afresh. On 12-10-2017 the defendants filed an application below Exhibit 36 before the Appellate Court and sought permission to deposit the amount of costs of Rs. 4000/-. The Appellate Court on the same day permitted the amount of costs to be deposited and directed the Nazir to accept the same. The amount of costs were deposited on the same day. On 24-10-2017 the original plaintiff filed a pursis stating that as the conditional order of payment of costs had not been complied with, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The Appellate Court however held that the amount of costs were already deposited as per application at Exhibit-36. Being aggrieved by the order permitting costs to be deposited, the original plaintiff has filed this civil revision application. 3. Shri P. P. Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the order passed by the appellate Court, the amount of costs were to be paid to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks. Instead of complying with that order and paying the costs to the plaintiff, the defendants sought permission of the Appellate Court and deposited that amount in Court. Instead of complying with that order and paying the costs to the plaintiff, the defendants sought permission of the Appellate Court and deposited that amount in Court. According to him the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted contrary to its own decree by granting permission to the defendants to deposit the costs inasmuch as the decree required the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff while the Appellate Court permitted the defendants to deposit that amount in Court. Referring to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 1(1) of the Code it was submitted that the manner of paying money under decree has been specified therein and in view of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 1(1)(c) of the Code the direction as issued ought to have been complied with. As this direction was not complied with and the costs were not paid to the plaintiff, the consequence as stated in the judgment of the Appellate Court of dismissal of the appeal ought to have followed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Prasad Jain vs. Indira Devi Jain AIR 1986 Allahabad 238. It was thus submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the original defendants was liable to be dismissed for not complying with the decree. 4. Shri S. V. Bhutada, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposed aforesaid submissions. According to him the defendants had within the period of two weeks deposited the amount of costs in Court. There was substantial compliance with the direction issued by the Appellate Court and merely on the basis of technicalities of the matter, the plaintiff was seeking dismissal of the appeal. It was submitted that what was relevant was the compliance with the order of payment of costs and same was duly done. He further submitted that in view of deposit of such costs, both the parties had appeared before the trial Court on 26-10-2017 as per the directions of the Appellate Court. He therefore submitted that the act of the defendants of seeking permission and depositing the costs in Court should not be held against them and as per directions of the Appellate Court the suit was liable to be decided on merits. He therefore submitted that the act of the defendants of seeking permission and depositing the costs in Court should not be held against them and as per directions of the Appellate Court the suit was liable to be decided on merits. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Premchand Bhikabhai vs. Ramdeo Sukdeo Marwadi, 1949 NLJ 393 = AIR 1949 Nagpur 141, Chinna Nadar vs. A.R.V. Arumugham Chetti, AIR 1927 Madras 1196, Smt. Jadav vs. Rameshwar Prasad, 1998(1) RLW 49, Ladulal vs. Keshavda, AIR 1969 Rajasthan 112 and Rakhadoo Isso Kothari vs. Narayan and ors., AIR 1959 M.P. 352 . It was thus submitted that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to their respective submission. As per the judgment of the first Appellate Court the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and after setting aside the decree for eviction the proceedings were remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. This remand however was subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/- to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks. It was further ordered that if the costs were not paid within said period the appeal would stand dismissed. This order is dated 4-10-2017 and the defendants on 12-10-2017 sought permission to deposit the costs in Court. This permission was granted on the same day and the costs were accordingly deposited. It is thus clear that the defendants within the stipulated period of two weeks had deposited the costs in Court. The only question as whether this act of depositing the costs in Court is contrary to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 1 of the Code. 6. The mode of making payment under decree has been specified by Rule 1(1) of Order XXI of the Code. Such money can either be deposited in the Court or sent to the Court by postal Money Order or through bank. It can also be paid out of Court to the decree-holder by various modes; else as per the direction of the Court which made the decree. These provisions pertain to execution of decrees and orders. Such money can either be deposited in the Court or sent to the Court by postal Money Order or through bank. It can also be paid out of Court to the decree-holder by various modes; else as per the direction of the Court which made the decree. These provisions pertain to execution of decrees and orders. If the nature of the decree passed by the first Appellate Court is taken into account it can be seen that a conditional direction has been issued by the Appellate Court. Subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/- the proceedings have been remanded. These costs were imposed with a view to compensate the plaintiff as there was delay in deciding the suit due to absence of the defendants before the trial Court. The consequence of non-compliance was also stated in the order. It is thus clear that this order cannot be said to be one which is executable as an order/decree. If the costs were paid to the plaintiff within stipulated period, the proceedings to be decided afresh by the trial Court and on failure to deposit the same within that period, the appeal filed by the defendants was to stand dismissed. The order was therefore self operative. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the order passed by the first Appellate Court was an executable order. 7. Though it is true that as per that order the costs were to be paid to the plaintiff, the defendants deposited the same in the Court. The intention of the defendants of complying with the order of payment of costs is thus clear and within the time granted by the first Appellate Court its order was substantially complied. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the order passed by the first Appellate Court permitting deposit of the amount of costs amounted to modifying the decree of the Court cannot be accepted. The decree stands as it is. From the conduct of the defendants I find that they have taken all necessary steps to comply with the directions issued by the Appellate Court. The objection now raised by the plaintiff is more of form rather than substance. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants in Premchand Bhikabhai, Smt Jadav and Chinna Nadar (supra) substantiate his contentions. The objection now raised by the plaintiff is more of form rather than substance. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants in Premchand Bhikabhai, Smt Jadav and Chinna Nadar (supra) substantiate his contentions. The decision in Mahabir Prasad Jain (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff takes a narrow view of the matter which respectfully does not commend itself to me. 8. In that view of the matter I do not find that the Appellate Court committed any error in permitting deposit of the amount of costs. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under section 115 of the Code. The Civil Revision Application therefore stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.