Court-supervised execution realisation is not an out-of-court payment, and prior restitution conditions must be satisfied before further execution.

Money realised by a decree-holder through execution of an attachment order passed by the court is not a payment made out of court within Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, because it arises from court-supervised execution rather than private adjustment; certification under that rule was therefore unnecessary, and the judgment-debtor could claim credit for the amount. A decree-holder subject to an earlier restitution order under Section 144 CPC requiring accounts of profits could not continue execution in disregard of that condition, and compliance with the account-rendering direction was required before further execution. The execution order was set aside, with further execution made conditional on satisfaction of the restitution direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether money realised by a decree-holder in execution of an attachment order passed by the executing court is a payment made out of court so as to attract Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the decree-holder could execute the decree without first rendering accounts as directed in the restitution proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether money realised by a decree-holder in execution of an attachment order passed by the executing court is a payment made out of court so as to attract Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order 21 Rule 2 applies to payments made out of court and to adjustments between decree-holder and judgment-debtor. The money in question was realised not by private arrangement, but pursuant to an order of the executing court permitting execution against the attached decrees. The court was aware of the process and the payment was received in the course of court-supervised execution. Such a realisation is not a payment made outside the court within the meaning of the rule, and therefore certification under Order 21 Rule 2 was not required.

Conclusion: The payment realised from the third party could be taken into account by the judgment-debtor, and Order 21 Rule 2 did not bar reliance on that amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree-holder could execute the decree without first rendering accounts as directed in the restitution proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The earlier order in restitution made the decree-holder's right to execute conditional upon rendering accounts of the profits collected during possession. That direction bound the decree-holder and also governed her assignee. In the absence of a finding that the required accounts had been rendered, execution could not proceed in full disregard of that condition. The judgment-debtor was therefore entitled to insist on compliance with the earlier order before further execution could continue.

Conclusion: The decree-holder could not proceed with execution until the accounts directed by the restitution order were rendered.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the execution order was set aside, and the judgment-debtor was entitled to credit for the amount realised from Benarsi Das, with further execution, if any, left to depend on compliance with the earlier restitution direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Money realised pursuant to a court-supervised execution order is not a payment out of court for purposes of Order 21 Rule 2, and a decree-holder bound by a prior restitution order cannot execute the decree without first complying with the condition imposed by that order.

---