JUDGMENT : 1. The parties were originally partners. Disputes arose and the disputes were referred to arbitration. Before the learned Arbitrator consent terms dated 6th August, 2007 were entered into under which respondent was to pay a sum of Rs.3,33,00,000/- in full and final settlement of claimant's claim. Post dated cheques were also given for the said amount. Consequently, further consent award dated 9th August, 2007 was passed. 2. Thereafter, insolvency proceedings were commenced by claimant in this Court and in the insolvency proceedings, consent terms dated 7th August, 2008 was entered into between the parties. It will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 of the said consent terms and the same read as under : “1. The Judgment Debtor admits and confirms her liability towards Judgment Creditor, as set out in the above Insolvency Notice. 2. Purely by way of concession, it is agreed between the parties that only if the Judgment Debtor pays to the Judgment Creditor an amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Five Lacs Only) as set out hereafter, without committing any default in payment thereof on the respective due dates, all claims of the Judgment Creditor in the above Insolvency Notice and the Consent Award dated 9th August, 2007, shall stand fully satisfied. 3. The Judgment Debtor agrees and undertakes to pay the said confessional amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Five Lacs Only) as follows : (i) Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Only) already paid before this date. The receipt whereof the Judgment Creditor admits and confirms. (ii) Rs.1,39,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Nine Lacs Only) on signing hereof vide pay order No.096276 dated 06.08.2008 drawn by Corporation Bank, Khar (West) Branch, receipt of which is hereby admitted. (iii) Rs.1,45,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Five Lacs Only) within a period of 15 days of the grant of extension of time by the Charity Commissioner for development and/or alienation and/or sale of property bearing Survey No.299 situated at Plot No.1(P) corresponding to C.T.S. No.B/1106 to 11 or within a period of 365 days from the date hereof, whichever is earlier. It is clearly understood and specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that the payment of the said installment of Rs.1,45,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Five Lacs Only) mentioned in Clause 3(iii) above, is not at all linked to or connected with the grant of extension of time by the Charity Commissioner or on any other circumstance. It is further clearly understood that notwithstanding such request for permission being rejected or not granted by the Charity Commissioner, the Judgment Debtor shall be bound by and under an obligation to pay the said amount within a period of 365 days from the date hereof and any default in payment of the said amount on or before the said period will constitute a default on the part of the Judgment Debtor in payment of the installment specified in clause 3(iii) above. 4. It is agreed by and between the parties that in the event the Judgment Debtor commits any default in payment of any of the balance amount mentioned in clause 3(ii) or 3(iii) above on their respective due dates, the concession agreed to be granted hereby shall stand withdrawn/revoked forthwith and the above Notice of Motion shall stand dismissed without any further reference or recourse to the Court. 5. It is clearly understood between the parties hereto, that it shall be the sole responsibility of the Judgment Creditor to settle the account of fees of Advocate Mr. V. M. Talreja without the Judgment Debtor being required to pay any amount on that count. 6. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that in the event the Judgment Debtor pays the amount mentioned above without committing any default in payment thereof on their respective due dates, the above Notice of Motion shall stand made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and the above Insolvency Notice shall stand set aside and the Award shall be marked fully satisfied. 11. Notice of Motion disposed off in terms aforesaid, with no order as to costs.” 3. As recorded in said consent terms, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- has already been paid. Mr. Pai confirmed that the pay order for Rs.1,39,00,000/- was honoured. As regards balance Rs.1,45,00,000/-, it is the case of respondent that after retaining a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as a security towards claim of advocate V.M. Talreja, the balance amount has been paid. As recorded in said consent terms, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- has already been paid. Mr. Pai confirmed that the pay order for Rs.1,39,00,000/- was honoured. As regards balance Rs.1,45,00,000/-, it is the case of respondent that after retaining a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as a security towards claim of advocate V.M. Talreja, the balance amount has been paid. Mr.Pai states the entire amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- has not been paid. 4. Annexed to the affidavit-in-reply to the notice is a copy of TDS certificate for Rs.30,38,500/- that was issued by respondent to claimant. Mr.Pai admitted that this TDS certificate has been received and to a query posed by the Court, confirmed that this TDS certificate was also filed along with annual returns of claimant and credit for the amount of Rs.30,38,500/- as tax paid was also claimed in the Income Tax returns of claimant. 5. It was also admitted that an amount of Rs.84,61,500/- has been paid. In the execution application, however, the claim of claimant is that respondent still has to pay substantial amounts and as on 6th August, 2009, there was an outstanding of Rs.95,38,500/. At the outset, I have to note that this is absolutely incorrect. Under the consent terms in the insolvency proceedings as on 7th August, 2008, the amount that was payable by respondent was to Rs.2,95,00,000/- Respondent admittedly has paid Rs.11,00,000/- + 1,39,00,000/- + Rs.30,38,500/- (as TDS) + Rs.84,61,500/which comes to a total amount of Rs.2,65,00,000/-, Rs.30,00,000/- is retained as security towards advocate's fees with the consent of claimant. This shows entire amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- payable is accounted for. 6. I would accept respondent's submission that this Rs.30,00,000/-, with the consent of claimant, was retained as security towards lawyer's fees because TDS has been deducted on this Rs.30,00,000/- as well and claimant used the said TDS certificate to claim tax credit. There is nothing on record that there was any protest by claimant to show that respondent could not have retained this amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. More over, there is a declaration-cum-affidavit of claimant affirmed on 12th August, 2009 in which claimant has confirmed that he has received in full and final all amount payable by respondent under the consent award dated 9th August 2007 read with consent terms dated 7th August, 2008. Paragraph 4 of the said declaration-cum-affidavit reads as under: “4. More over, there is a declaration-cum-affidavit of claimant affirmed on 12th August, 2009 in which claimant has confirmed that he has received in full and final all amount payable by respondent under the consent award dated 9th August 2007 read with consent terms dated 7th August, 2008. Paragraph 4 of the said declaration-cum-affidavit reads as under: “4. I further say that in accordance with the Consent Award dated 9th August 2007 read with Consent Terms dated 7th August 2008, I have received full and final amount payable by the said Mrs.Vandana Suresh Punwani to me and I hereby confirm and assure that within 10 days from the date hereof, I shall withdraw all the legal proceedings filed by me against the said Mrs.Vandana Suresh Punwani including the complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate Court being Revision Application No.704 of 2008 and Revision Application No.698 of 2008. The said Mrs. Vandana Suresh Punwani will withdraw the Complaints and proceedings, if any, initiated by her against me.” (emphasis supplied.) 7. Mr. Pai submitted that the said affidavit-cum-declaration was taken by respondent from claimant by unduly influencing claimant. Between 12th August 2009 till further affidavit dated 10th August, 2016 affirmed by claimant was filed, there is not even a whisper that the said affidavit was taken by respondent by unduly influencing claimant. There is an advocate's notice dated 1st August, 2015, which, from execution application appears was the first communication after the said affidavit-cum-declaration dated 12th August, 2009 was given. Even in the said advocate's notice, there is no mention that the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 12th August 2009 was taken by unduly influencing or that the said affidavit-cum-declaration was being revoked or withdrawn. It is, therefore, very clear that the stand of claimant that the said affidavit-cum-declaration was taken by exercising undue influence is nothing but an after thought and smacks of utter dishonesty after having receiving the entire amount. 8. Mr. Pai submitted that under Order 21 Rule 22 (2), judgment debtor may inform the Court after payment or adjustment and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree holder to show cause why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as decree satisfied. 8. Mr. Pai submitted that under Order 21 Rule 22 (2), judgment debtor may inform the Court after payment or adjustment and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree holder to show cause why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as decree satisfied. Mr.Pai submitted that in this case respondent not having taken out any such application, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the entire decree has been satisfied or adjusted. This is nothing but hyper technical argument being raised by Mr.Pai and requires to be rejected. In response to the execution application, respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the entire decretal amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/has been paid and the decree be marked satisfied. That itself in my view, can be considered as an application to mark the decree as satisfied. 9. Mr.Pai relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court Sultana Begum V. Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1997 SC 1006 to submit that unless executing Court comes to the conclusion that the decree was compromised or adjusted or satisfaction was not recorded and so certified by the Court, the executing Court would not recognize any payment made or adjusted. To query posed by the Court, Mr.Pai, however, in fairness, also submitted that this Court got power to record and certify that the decree has been wholly satisfied or adjusted or compromised. 10. I would say that the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sultana Begum (supra) actually confirms the words “or the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted” are of wide amplitude and it is open to the decree holder and judgment debtor to enter into a contract or compromise in regard to their rights and obligations under the decree. If such contract or compromise amount to an adjustment or satisfaction of a decree, it has to be so recorded by the Court under Rule 2 of Order 21. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Sultana (Supra) reads as under : 16. Order XXI Rule 2 applies to a specific set of circumstances. If any money is payable under a decree, irrespective of the nature of decree, and such money is paid out of court, the decree-holder has to certify such payment to the court whose duty it is to execute the decree and that court has to record the same accordingly. Order XXI Rule 2 applies to a specific set of circumstances. If any money is payable under a decree, irrespective of the nature of decree, and such money is paid out of court, the decree-holder has to certify such payment to the court whose duty it is to execute the decree and that court has to record the same accordingly. Similarly if a decree, irrespective of its nature, is adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder has to certify such adjustment to that court which has to record the adjustment accordingly. If the payment or adjustment is not reported by the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor has been given the right to inform the court of such payment or adjustment and to apply to that court for certifying that payment or adjustment after notice to the decree-holder. Then comes Sub-rule(3) which provides that a payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded under Sub-rule (1) or (2), shall not be recognised by the court executing the decree. 17. The words "or the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted" are of wide amplitude. It is open to the parties namely, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor to enter into a contract or compromise in regard to their rights and obligations under the decree. If such contract or compromise amounts to an adjustment of the decree, it has to be recorded by the court under Rule 2 of Order XXI. It may be pointed out that an agreement, contract or compromise which has the effect of extinguishing the decree in whole or in part on account of decree being satisfied to that extent will amount to an adjustment of the decree within the meaning of this Rule and the Court, if approached, will issue the certificate of adjustment. An uncertified payment of money or adjustment which is not recorded by the court under Order XXI Rule 2 cannot be recognised by the executing court. In a situation like this, the only enquiry that the executing court can do is to find out whether the plea taken on its face value, amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of decree, wholly or in part, and whether such adjustment or satisfaction had the effect of extinguishing the decree to that extent. In a situation like this, the only enquiry that the executing court can do is to find out whether the plea taken on its face value, amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of decree, wholly or in part, and whether such adjustment or satisfaction had the effect of extinguishing the decree to that extent. If the executing court comes to the conclusion that the decree was adjusted wholly or in part but the compromise or adjustment or satisfaction was not recorded and/or certified by the court, the executing court would not recognise them and will proceed to execute the decree. 18. The problem can be looked into from another angle on the basis of the maxim "generalia speciallibus non derogant." 19. Section 47, as pointed out earlier, gives full jurisdiction and power to the executing court to decide all questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. Order XXI Rule 3, however, places a restraint on the exercise of that power by providing that the executing court shall not recognise or look into any uncertified payment of money or any adjustment of decree. If any such adjustment or payment is pleaded by the judgment-debtor before the executing court, the latter, in view of the legislative mandate, has to ignore it if it has not been certified or recorded by the court. (emphasis supplied.) 11. In my view, the declaration-cum-affidavit dated 12th August 2009, admittedly, made by claimant, can certainly be viewed to be a contract and also a compromise. The fact that this declaration-cum-affidavit dated 12th August 2009 was issued, is not disputed. After more than 7 years an attempt by way of further affidavit in support of execution application is being made only to get around this declaration-cum-affidavit. Even in the advocate's notice, dated 1st August, 2015, there is no mention about this declaration-cum-affidavit being taken under undue influence. Even if it is so stated, such a stand, in my view cannot be taken after 6 years. 12. As noted above there cannot be any dispute that the final figure agreed to be paid was Rs.2,95,00,000/-, claimant has received Rs.2,65,00,000/- and parties agreed that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- will be retained by respondent as security to pay advocates fees which was to be paid by claimant. I am informed that advocate Mr. 12. As noted above there cannot be any dispute that the final figure agreed to be paid was Rs.2,95,00,000/-, claimant has received Rs.2,65,00,000/- and parties agreed that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- will be retained by respondent as security to pay advocates fees which was to be paid by claimant. I am informed that advocate Mr. V.M. Talreja has also filed a suit against claimant and respondent for recovery of his fees and the claim in the suit exceeds Rs.30,00,000/-. If claimant had any dispute in this regard, I would have expected claimant to immediately or at least address a communication to respondent protesting for retaining an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. This has not been done. I would have also expected that claimant might have protested for TDS that was deducted to cover even this Rs.30,00,000/- Advocate's fees to be paid. Even that has not been done. 13. Mr.Pai submitted that by various correspondence between 21st December, 2009 and 17th April, 2010, claimant had protested for deducting TDS ((Rs.30,38,500/- ) on this amount of Rs.30,00,000/. This protest is that TDS was not deductible and not that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- could not have been retained. Admittedly, at the cost of repetition, claimant has utilized this entire amount of Rs.30,38,500/- TDS to claim tax benefit. 14. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is nothing but an attempt of claimant, having received entire amount under the consent decree, to pressurize respondent to pay some more money. 15. Mr.Pai submitted that for the Court to come to a conclusion, that the entire amount has been satisfied, respondent should show details of each payments. In my view, it will be sufficient, if respondent gives a copy of receipt issued by claimant showing that he has received entire claim amount in full and final settlement. In this case details of payment of Rs.2,65,00,000/- has been given and balance of Rs.30,00,000/- has been retained as per the agreement between the parties. In my view, the declaration-cum-affidavit, read with TDS certificate has the effect of entering the decree in whole being satisfied, within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 16. The Execution Application accordingly stands dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This amount to be paid within two weeks from today. 17. Consequently, notice discharged and all pending applications stand disposed. 18. Mr. 16. The Execution Application accordingly stands dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This amount to be paid within two weeks from today. 17. Consequently, notice discharged and all pending applications stand disposed. 18. Mr. Pai seeks stay on order of costs. Stay refused.