(? -e.V^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. M 32- /2004 / PETITIONER : JUDGMENT DEBTOR 1\^§ ^^'^ ^.^'^^\"~ ^>^C^T>^ .-•-' ^^ ShaUk Ram, S/o. Sohuram Aged about 35 years, R/o.Deepak Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Departmental Address Qtr.No. 139111, Post-Riger Tech. M.P.-2, throughA.P.O.-2,Bhilai SteelPlant, DistrictDurg (C.G.) VERSUS HarimitraDheer, S/o. LalaAmamath Dheer, aged ab6uf65 years, R/o. 219-ARishaliSector,BhUai PostMaroda, Tahsil and District DurgfC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE22'7 OF CONSTITUTION OFINDIA RESPONDENT DECREEHOLDER •S^^TPiM^;^trepJ®,1 ^-,,.......u^a^..®^&^ 3Ili?l'WR<-tj«b ^TS!H' STE^T a>;*ii<=s. ik '<• ->- -l-iiUUS SmT.Sudhd^grftwal.c^unselfor'thepetitJoner; Smt; KirahiJain, couns^i forthe responden+. i-leor'd both the counsel TTie petiTidner hds pre the Constitutjon of Iriclift^u^stioning l+iecofvcctnie.ss^and proprie'ty of the order dated 8-3-20p4 pas^inexecut^ No.209t/2Q04. whereby the hierein to pay R3.4,OQO/- pe SUit for recovery against th< of Rs.56,7777- was passed Learned counsel forl getitioner is a poor mari an^ salary aftsr deduction Rs.6i has fixed -Hie ins+almen-fs bi|i • <*>wi!-f4l-i tnTOif ^ fefttfsi^iT ^srRiqan^i ;. ferred^rtijs petiTion under Ai'r'Ci®227of trial Cpurt hotS directed the getitibner month. The respondent hecein fited a petj-t-ioner herein ond deeree •fe dmount qgainsf l4ie petitioner-^wid •ftierectftBr iSiacution proc^ding was 4un^ed ^°!ns^ T^ impugned order was passed. the oetitibner submi'tted tiicit the as per- ^nnexure-P/S he is drawing net QOO/- smd, thsTefore, exBCuting Cpurt afiiighep side which is not possible fpr *he peTitioner to deposit, T+i4rofore, jnstalments of Ss.1,000/- niay be fixed. On the other hand, l^ii'ned counsei for respondeiit submitted that instead of Rs.t,QOO/- in^ialmenfpfRs.2,OQO/-fflaybefixed. ^ET^IflKa'-l, ®Ttl'9'IS,iK)611'M>l< 20Q 371^?? '<Rgr^( 'jciIyiyT) sn^iwfs'mi' -'tW 3?T^?T sS^iT^f garve t-laving hear'd learned counsi to the fact thatatid salai*Y of th< now, the salary must hgys been in< consideration, instalment of Rs.4,1 month and Ifie petitioner is dire infftedcfof Rs.4,000/-; With the dir'ection afopesaK Con^quently, ft\.(W.$P. No.l PartJesare®rrtJtledfoi'tc8r'ti 1 for" the parties_and hav'ing regarci petitioner in the yeat' 2002 and by inc^eased, taking nl! these factors jnto ,(|)00/- is reduced to Rs.2,000/- per ?^ted to pay Rs.2,000/- per mpnth , tbe petition si^nds disposed of. 1<|126/2Q04 also standsdisposed of. i^ied copy of this oreier. °fil<lifl<ftl -4Wv^^ l3l<^ <^l <-$.t< i? sifgn aii^i - . // ~~^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo " Judge \ / Gi.PKJ—FS/350—12/2000—50.000. s '\--