JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This civil revision petition at the instance of the petitioner/judgment debtor (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) is directed against the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned executing Court whereby the objections filed by him came to be rejected and the respondent/decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) has been directed to file the list of his properties. 2. The respondents despite their service have failed to put in appearance. Even though, on 21.03.2025, one Shivam Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel, did put in appearance on their behalf, however, today none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The sequence of facts as narrated in the petition are that initially the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the case came to be compromised by the parties in the Lok Adalat on 18.09.2018. In terms of the compromise deed and order of compromise, the matter had been settled at Rs.1,40,000/-, which was to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on or before 31.03.2019 in six installments. 4. According to the petitioner, he has paid the aforesaid amount to the respondent in four installments on the following dates: Sr. No. Date Amount 1. 25.10.2018 Rs.32,000/- 2. 30.12.2018 Rs.68,000/- 3. 20.01.2019 Rs.17,000/- 4. 30.03.2019 Rs.23,000/- 5. According to the petitioner, he was surprised to receive a notice in the execution petition filed by the respondent and after appearing before the learned executing Court filed his objections bringing to the notice of the Court the factum of payment of amount. 6. As observed above, the learned executing Court dismissed the objections constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the learned executing Court and found that one of the reasons for rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding payment of amount is that the money had not been paid in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 and 2 CPC which read as under: “Payment under decree 1[1. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the learned executing Court and found that one of the reasons for rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding payment of amount is that the money had not been paid in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 and 2 CPC which read as under: “Payment under decree 1[1. Modes of paying money under decree — (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely :— (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgement due. (3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely : — (a) the number of the original suit; (b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants; (c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs; (d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and (e) the name and address of the payer. (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). (5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment : Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.] 2. Payment out of Court to decree-holder — (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court 1 [or decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted] 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 it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment-debtor 2 [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 record the same accordingly. 2[(2A) 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, on before the Court.] (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.” 8. A bare reading of Rules 1 and 2 of the Order 21 CPC shows that the petitioner is entitled to make the payment otherwise than the mode provided in sub-rule 1(b) when such payment is evidenced in writing. (Refer: Bapulal Walchand Jain (since deceased by L.Rs) and others vs. Pandurang Vithal Pingle AIR 2003 Bombay 5). 9. Once that be so, obviously this part of the order passed by the learned executing Court cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set aside. 10. A further perusal of the impugned order goes to indicate that the learned executing Court while rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding the payment of the amount has observed that the payment has not been approved by the documentary evidence, though photocopies of certain receipts have been attached by the petitioner. It has gone to the extent of observing that there is nothing in the receipts in relation to making of payment in compliance to the award passed by the Lok Adalat. 11. The findings recorded by the learned executing Court to say the least are extremely shocking and disturbing. How the learned executing Court, without even calling upon the respondent to admit or deny these documents (receipts) or in the alternative without permitting the petitioner to lead evidence, has reached to such a far-reaching conclusion, is beyond my comprehension. 12. The learned executing Court has failed to adhere to an old adage that “every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to ensure that truth in the case comes out. The truth is the base of justice delivery system and, therefore, should be a guiding star in the entire judicial process. The Courts’ serious endeavour is to find out wherein infact the truth lies. The Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 13. Having said so, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order passed by the learned executing Court on 23.12.2019 is set aside. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 13. Having said so, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order passed by the learned executing Court on 23.12.2019 is set aside. The learned executing Court is directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioner afresh after calling upon the respondent to first admit or deny the documents by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to establish the payment of the amount in terms of the compromise. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.