-HC—78 ~3^' •<11«11CT<-1, SitTt'H'l'o, Rdi'y^-!. ^^(^o^ 3g£%/=^ . ^^....................................................^^g 3!I^?I 'lW?('p(y)<i^l) "sflSw^iR-ii'* ;NiSiT3Tl^?T i?)*llqi TOIIW <J%9 3Tft?I <^l<tfel<fil i?WR^ff ^f fST^ ^^F< ^? sifipr 3ii^r LS (DEN' R^in Bharose Chaudhari son of Kilshilal Chaudhffi, aged 63 years, No. 2, Block No; 3 Street No. 4, tstor No. 2, Bhilai Tahsil and Di|jtrict Durg (CG) Slibrad' Chand Soai. - son of B^aprasad Som, aged 65 years, re^ident of?3ot No. A/84, Street No. 271 Smriti Nagiir, Bhilai Tahsil and i^trictDurg (CG) fcond Civil Judse. Ciass- 1, Dr.re Di| Se (C •J) "T'TT'TiT'S.^T r'li.fi.i'i'itji^ ?F A- r'nTLE :EN.K.AGARWAL Secdnd Shri H.B. Agrawal, syi Advocate, &r tliepetitioner; Shri Jitendra Gupta, Ad| 2. Instant petition is direc 2003 passed by leamed Secej Execution Case No. 6-B/99, decree holder / respondent No| by sendiiHgtlie petrtioner m ci\j respondent No. 1 was direct^ TS'iS judgment asd decrse has| Adv. -witli Ku. Rilild Taiiirakar, ^. for the respondeiit No. 1. led apauist the order dated 22-11- eejnd Civil Judge Class. I, Durg in •wpiereby the application filed by the 1 3'ierein fbr executmg the decree pl prison, has been allowed andthe (d to deposit gecessary expenses. been passed in CiviI.Suit No. 6- an%?l^il^;l vw sn^sii *'<w lllil'l Iti WtlCTI WIIW 3^ -HirqRT.!T,.'g^FIS,'f^iraS? S'^2 ^/°3 "•^200 __.;..^..:[^.' ^s 3(I^T -q^T (^t31<<ff) TCim^tei aii^i *l<<fo<il-f KWvififty''! t^l^K ^ajfimail^l B/99, for paymeat of 20,000/- [with iiitejest @ 6% per aunum Irom the date of suit. The sa3ft decree was afSn-ned by tlie appellate Court. 3. The main contention Tais^d by Shri Agrawal, leai-ned Sr. Counsel appearuig for the petitio|aer is that Section 51 ofC.P.C. has aot been duly complied with^efore passing the order to send tbe petitioner m civil prison and, 'jherefbre, t!ie order impuefled is and bad. Second contendo^ raised by S!iri Agrawal is thaf ^av ihe decretal amount in insta2]me.nts in terms ofOrder 20|Ryle .11 sub-rule (2) ofC.P.C. js to be aUowed. P-sr contra, Shri Jitendra, lelpned counse] appeariiig for tlie respondent no. 1 supp^-ts fie ir|ipugned order passed by the Executing Court and conteaded fli^t tlie petitionef is deliberately avoiding payiiieflt ofdecretal amo^nt and the petition deserves •to be dismissed. 5. I have heard leamed counse| for t2ie parties. 6. On a qyeiy fi-om Shri A^-awal, he submits that. the petitioner has aot nioved any.appli^ation imder Order 20 Rule 11 siio-rule (2), C.P.C., withifl the ti^ie prescribed before the trial Court for granting instaluaents for pa}'Toent of decretal amount. The decree was passed m the year ^1-10-2002 aiid siiice then, six l.^"fll""iT n n ^i:lt iimwi ti>*«<»» 73: •^Wvi^, yS\wis,^WWj;t. , " ,t'^o^' 3^2<S/Q? "•WI,200 w- 31^1 ^il ft-li'* wnsBi^iwii^ an^r'f^s C^P^?) ^anER ttt^d <*ti^(i •Mt,. <Sl *l<lfd<il-< t(l*<d?ii1s1^ <l"ifci< ' ^fT SfRFT ^1^<1 •^^••^:^fe-.'^ ":'i"»jS"; ysars aave passed acd ^TIOW, |fee petifioner .''judgnienf debfor has not paid a single peruiy to th.4 decree holder. t .7. As.pep.provision coatain^d m Order 20 Rule 11 sub-ruie (2], C.P.C.,'!}^ judgment debti|)r has to prefer an applicatioii |se .decree, ifhe wants to pay the I, so, t2ie oral prayer of Shri (fsixyears, eaimotl?e granted.. [i, no sueft iUegality bas been ii passing the impugiied order. fie of law t-hat tliis Court, ta a:'*^;:.iWli&m 3Qjte5Si>fi'Q2a passing off\ dscretal aisount in mstallmentl Agrawal, tliat too, a&er a period c s, l3i my^consiciered opiiuo caused by the leamed trial Couai It is well settied pi~mci <<• exercise of its su'DervisoiT iul of fhe Constitiitioii of. ladial in.terierrag wifh fhe ordef ^ except m such cases wfae ju-'isciictional eiTOr is writ lai'i wl'iicli is not ia fhe present ca^ .isdiction luider Article 227 should refraiii itsetf frora assed by fhe Court below f^e perversity, illegality or in ss.^T^- J'lie peQUon beuig clevol be disiaissed aild is herebv di; on the face of fiie record, e. td of substance, is liable to limssed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge