IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2916 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.09.2009 Daya Nand .....Petitioner versus State Bank of India .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-judgment debtor is aggrieved at the order dated 19.5.2007 whereby his, one after the other objections, have been dismissed and notice under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, to arrest him in execution of the money decree, has been issued by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.7,500/- from the respondent-bank on 18.12.1976 alongwith interest @ 14.5.% per annum. As the petitioner failed to discharge the loan liability, the respondent-bank filed a suit for recovery which was decreed vide judgment and decree C.R. No.2916 of 2007 (O&M) 2 dated 22.4.1991 for a sum of Rs.32,804.85 with future interest. The decree has attained finality. As the petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount, the respondent-bank filed an execution petition in the year 1995. The petitioner raised certain objections which were dismissed in the year 1997. He thereafter, raised an objection that a sum of Rs.10,000/- had not been credited by the bank to his account. The respondent-bank rectified the mistake, yet the petitioner kept on hoodwinking the process of law, therefore, coercive steps like directions for civil imprisonment of the petitioner were issued. The petitioner then approached this Court and pursuant to the directions, is said to have deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner moved one after the other frivolous applications which have been finally dismissed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order dated 19.5.2007 whereby a notice under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC has also been issued for arrest of the petitioner. Aggrieved at the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court third time and has obtained an interim stay against his arrest. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a total sum of Rs.1.10,000/- has been deposited as against the principal amount of Rs.7,500/- and nothing is recoverable from him the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that such a question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has to satisfy the Executing Court that the money-decree has C.R. No.2916 of 2007 (O&M) 3 been fully satisfied. The impugned order clearly indicates that the petitioner has not paid the entire arrears of the decretal amount so far. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to deposit the balance of the decretal amount as determined by the Executing Court, within one month without prejudice to his legal rights. Till then, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. After depositing the entire decretal amount, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek a copy of the statement of account prepared by the respondent-bank as per the Civil Court decree dated 22.4.1991 and if the petitioner files any objection thereto, the Executing Court shall decide the question as to whether or not the money-decree has been fully satisfied. Disposed of . Dasti. 01-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE