IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CR 168 of 2007. Date of decision 4.3.2008. Ex. Havildar Piara Singh @ Piara Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Waheguru Singh & others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant Shri Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This revision petition has been preferred by respondent- judgment debtor Ex. Havildar Piara Singh against the order passed by the learned Fast Track Court in Execution Petition No. 17 of 2005 challenging it on various grounds. By the impugned order, the executing Court has passed order in the following terms: Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - “In nutshell the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,946/- is still unpaid though the same was ordered to be paid by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within eight weeks from 24.3.2005 failing which the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since the amount in question was not deposited within eight weeks, now the petitioner is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.55,946/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.1992. The objections under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC are accordingly disposed of.” The petitioner has challenged this order on various grounds. The matter was heard at length. Learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor prays that the Judgment Debtor be granted time to pay the amount as determined in the impugned order in instalments. Learned counsel for the decree holder has opposed this request on a number of grounds inter alia that the order is eminently just and calls for no interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as ‘the Code’). - 3 - In the totality of circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order determining the amount payable is wrong. The prayer made by the petitioner that the decretal amount alongwith interest as determined by the trial Court be allowed to be paid in instalments spread over a period of one year is reasonable. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor undertakes to liquidate the entire liability on or before 31.3.2009. This revision petition is disposed of with the directions that the judgment debtor will pay the entire decretal amount alongwith interest as determined by the executing Court on or before 31.3.2009. It is clarified that in case the entire amount is not liquidated before this date, the decree shall become executable forthwith. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the executing Court modified to the extent indicated above. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. March 4, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.