IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No.: 171 of 2008 Reserved on: 21.06.2011. Decided on: 19.07.2011. __________________________________________________________ Shri Bhinder Sain Sood. … Petitioner. Versus Shri Anil Kumar Sood. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This revision petition is directed against order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Execution No.12 of 2006. 2. Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondent/decree holder (hereinafter referred to as “the decree holder” for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - convenience sake) has instituted a suit for recovery of ` 60,000/- against the petitioner/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment debtor” for convenience sake). The suit was decreed on 26.10.2004 for recovery of ` 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Thereafter execution petition bearing No.3 of 2005 was filed by the decree holder. According to the averments contained in the petition, a sum of ` 90,000/- was deposited by the judgment debtor on 28.3.2005 and for remaining amount, the matter was fixed for conciliation on 15.7.2006, but the decree holder did not appear and the matter was directed to be put up before Lok Adalat on 26.8.2006. The judgment debtor made payment of the balance amount of ` 9108/- to the decree holder. His statement was recorded vide Annexure P-2 on 26.8.2006. Thereafter, the decree holder again instituted an execution petition against the judgment debtor bearing No.12 of 2006 for recovery of ` 36,877.26. The judgment debtor filed objections to the same. Reply was filed by the decree holder. The executing Court vide order dated 6.10.2007 ordered that the amount to be paid by the judgment debtor was ` 24519.74 till 22.9.2007 alongwith future interest till realization of the entire amount. This order was not challenged by the judgment debtor. He deposited a sum - 3 - of ` 24,520/- on 21.5.2008 in the treasury. The executing Court directed the judgment debtor on 3.9.2008 to pay a sum of ` 3001/- to the decree holder. This order has been challenged by the judgment debtor by way of the present petition. 3. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the Lok Adalat, the execution petition stood compromised and was dismissed as withdrawn. He has referred to the statement made by the decree holder on 26.8.2006 before the Lok Adalat. He then contended that since the judgment debtor had already paid a sum of ` 24,520/- on 21.5.2008, he was not liable to pay any amount to the decree holder. 4. The decree holder was served for 3.12.2010, but no appearance has been put on his behalf. 5. It is evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that judgment debtor suffered a money decree of ` 60,000/- vide judgment dated 26.10.2004. He has to pay this amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In execution petition No.3 of 2005, he has paid a sum of ` 99,108.35. Statement to this effect was also made by the decree holder before the Lok Adalat on 26.8.2006. Thereafter fresh execution petition bearing No.12 of 2006 was filed by the decree holder for - 4 - recovery of ` 36,877.26. The objections filed by the judgment debtor were rejected by the executing Court on 3.9.2008. The learned executing Court has referred to order dated 6.10.2007 whereby the amount payable by the judgment debtor was ` 24,519.74 till 22.9.2007 alongwith future interest till realization of the entire amount. The amount calculated by the decree holder towards interest was ` 3001/-. This amount was payable by the judgment debtor as per order dated 6.10.2007. According to the order passed by the executing Court on 6.10.2007 the amount was recoverable from the judgment debtor till 22.9.2007 alongwith future interest till realization of the amount. Since the entire amount has not been paid by the judgment debtor with future interest, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 3.9.2008 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. The interim order dated 3.12.2010, made absolute on 6.1.2011 is vacated. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 19, 2011. (sck).