Civil Revision No. 6242 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6242 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 State Bank of Patiala ...Petitioner Versus Jai Parkash and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. G.S.Anand, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. **** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner State Bank of Patiala had obtained a decree for the recovery of certain amount against the respondents-defendants. In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors-respondents raised a plea that the recovery of amount had to be diluted in the light of the RBI guidelines in NPA account. In the light thereof, the learned Trial Court directed DH bank to disclose full and final payable amount. As DH bank did not do the needful, the learned trial Court ordered the stay of auction proceedings and also issued a further direction “for production of calculation as per RBI guidelines in NPA account.” Apart therefrom the learned Trial Court also directed that G. M., State Bank of Patiala would Civil Revision No. 6242 of 2007 -2- **** appear in person for settlement of the controversy. Learned counsel for the DH bank argues that the RBI guidelines under reference were applicable only to those cases where a decree had not yet been passed by the Civil Court. In other words, the argument proceeds, those guidelines are not indicated to be applicable to cases in which a decree in favour of the bank had already come to be passed by the Court. The plea is resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-judgment debtors who state that DH bank must compulsively honour the guidelines issued by the RBI and grant benefit of dilution in compliance therewith. The Executing Court is duty bound to execute the decree on 'As is where is basis'. There are certain eventualities in which the Executing Court may be entitled to go behind the decree. However, the Executing Court would not be entitled to issue a direction to the bank to grant benefit, on the point of dilution of payable amount, to a judgment debtor in terms of RBI guidelines in the context of NPA account. If a Judgment Debtor has a cognizable grievance that a bank is not complying with the guidelines issued by the RBI (which, ofcourse, is higher in hierarchy qua the other banks), he may take recourse to the remedy available to him on the administrative side. He may also toy with the idea of filing a writ petition if he finds that guidelines are legally enforceable. I am, however, clear in my mind that a Judgment Debtor cannot compel a bank to follow the guidelines issued by the RBI. It is particularly so when there is a specific averment that the guidelines would apply only to the cases which have not yet been disposed of. On facts, the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor is not in a position to contradict it. Civil Revision No. 6242 of 2007 -3- **** In the light thereof, it is apparent that the impugned order is plainly unsustainable. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order is set aside in toto. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case. January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge