Execution Second Appeal No. 26 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Execution Second Appeal No. 26 of 2010 Date of decision : April 28, 2011 Sukhwant Singh ....Appellant versus State Bank of India ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant Respondent ex parte. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Sukhwant Singh judgment debtor having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant execution second appeal. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff-State Bank of India for recovery of money was decreed against the appellant. Respondent filed execution petition for execution of the decree. In the said execution petition, judgment debtor/appellant herein filed objections alleging that as per notification of Reserve Bank of India and as per compromise, the JD is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs 1,65,000/- in three instalments. Respondent-decree holder denied any such guidelines of Reserve Bank of Execution Second Appeal No. 26 of 2010 -2- India and also denied the alleged compromise. Learned executing court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar vide impugned order dated 19.2.2010 dismissed the objection petition filed by the JD and ordered sale of his attached property. First appeal preferred by the JD against said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 5.5.2010. Feeling aggrieved, JD-objector has filed the instant execution second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file whereas respondent is ex parte. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to produce alleged compromise according to which the appellant was to pay the remaining amount of Rs 1,65,000/- only and that too in instalments. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that pursuant to compromise, the appellant deposited Rs 75,000/- with the respondent on 23.6.2007. However, deposit receipt of the said amount does not speak of any compromise effected between the parties. The respondent -decree holder accepted the payment of Rs 75,000/- as part payment towards the decretal amount. The deposit receipt of Rs 75,000/- does not in any way depict that there was any compromise between the parties or that amount of Rs 1,65,000/- only remains to be paid or that appellant is entitled to pay the same in three instalments. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that objection petition filed by JD-appellant herein is completely meritless and has been rightly dismissed Execution Second Appeal No. 26 of 2010 -3- by the courts below. The second appeal is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 28, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'