https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276585 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. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:36:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276585 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Dec 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276585