IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1306 of 2009 Date of decision: 9.3.2009 M/s Khanna Ice Factory etc. ......Petitioners Versus State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur etc. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 4.3.2009 and 18.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat and Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat vide which the application for offering to deposit the outstanding amount under NPA Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India, has been dismissed. As per the facts mentioned in this petition, vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2000, suit for recovery of Rs.8,58,836/- was decreed against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2000. The respondent-Bank filed an execution application for execution of the aforesaid decree, to which the petitioners filed an application offering to deposit the amount as calculated under NPA Scheme of Reserve Bank of India. The Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat vide order dated 18.12.2008 rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners observing that the scheme under which the judgment-debtor wanted to pay the amount was applicable in the year 2004 and the judgment-debtor failed to avail that Scheme and the same is not applicable now. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Vide impugned order dated 4.3.2009, Additional District Judge, Panipat held that the order CR No.1306 of 2009 -2- dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr. Division), was not appealable order and even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the appeal is maintainable, then also there is no merit in the appeal as a perusal of the Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India shows that the said Scheme was available in the year 2004 and there was no document on the file to prove that the said Scheme was extended for a further period after 31.3.2004 and that decretal-holder cannot be forced to accept the amount as per the said Scheme. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are asking for settlement of the decretal amount in the Executing Court as per Settlement Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India available in the year 2004, which stood closed in the year 2004 itself. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and is obliged to execute the decree as it is. Even otherwise, it is well settled that various schemes issued by the Reserve Bank of India for settlement of the borrowed amount are in the nature of concession and cannot be enforced as a matter of right. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. March 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE