1 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6994/2005. State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors. Date of Order :: 1st August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, Dy.Govt. Counsel, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Grewal for Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the respondent No.2. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred by the decree- holder against the order dated 27.05.2005 as passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Execution Case No. 4/1999 whereby the learned Executing Court has accepted the prayer of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor for making payment of the decreetal amount, due till that date at Rs. 2,23,619/-, in half-yearly installments of Rs. 20,000/- each. In this writ petition, show cause notices were issued on 31.05.2006. When the matter was placed before the Court on 02.07.2008 for default on the part of the petitioner in filing the requisite notices for service on the respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 pointed out that the said respondent No.1 has since expired. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for and was granted time to complete his instructions and to take 2 requisite steps and the matter was ordered to be placed after four weeks. On the matter being called out today, learned Government Counsel expresses want of instructions and prays for further time. There appears no reason to allow any further time and declining the prayer, the matter is being considered on merits. Having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that no case is made out for interference in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects are that the plaintiff Ramji Das Sachdeva filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 31,000/-, said to be the dues in relation to the contract work executed by him. The defendant-petitioner, on the other hand, made a counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 99,640.57 from the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court, after taking the evidence and hearing the parties, proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff and, at the same time, decreed the counter-claim of the defendant-petitioner by judgment and decree dated 18.04.1987 (Annex.2); and held the defendant-petitioner entitled to recover from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 96,370.70 together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the counter-claim while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 3 The original plaintiff Ramji Das has since expired and in execution proceedings in relation to the decree aforesaid, the present respondents, sons of the deceased plaintiff, submitted that they were ready to make payment of the decreetal amount but prayed for allowing them to make such payment in six- monthly installments of Rs. 20,000/- each with the submissions that the original plaintiff Ramji Das was suffering from kidney ailment who was treated at Ludhiana and ultimately expired; and that they had incurred substantial expenditure in his treatment and were under serious distress. The learned Executing Court, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, has considered it appropriate to accept the prayer so made on behalf of the present respondents in the fashion that they would make payment of the decreetal amount in half-yearly installments of Rs. 20,000/- each, starting from 01.01.2006 with further stipulation that in case of default in payment of two installments consecutively, the decree-holder would be entitled to recover the entire amount. The order as passed by the learned Executing Court cannot be said to be unjustified or leading to any failure of justice and, looking to the amount involved and nature of arrangement in relation to the payment as allowed by the Executing Court, it does not appear appropriate to consider 4 any interference in the said order passed as back as on 27.05.2005. The grounds as urged in this writ petition hardly make out any case for interference. The submission that Executing Court could not have ordered payment by way of installments remains untenable. The other submission that the respondents have acquired possession of the property of late Shri Ramji Das and must have received handsome amount and must be having sufficient means remains equally baseless. The submission that earlier some objections of the respondents, regarding executability of the decree in question, were rejected by the learned Executing Court does not lead to any error or illegality in the impugned order whereby payment of the decreetal amount has been allowed in installments. In the aforesaid view of the matter, when the petitioner has failed to take proper steps in relation to the respondent No.1 within reasonable time despite granting of opportunity on 02.07.2008; and when there does not appear any failure of justice, looking to the overall circumstances, there is no reason to continue with this writ petition any further. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/