C.R. No. 174 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 14, 2009 Smt. Kalawati .. Petitioner v. State Bank of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent-Bank on 10.6.2002, were dismissed. The petitioner, who is a guarantor, is mother of one of the partners of the Judgement Debtor-firm. In the objections filed to the execution, a plea was sought to be raised that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the amount of the bank in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for One Time Settlement, as the interest charged is quite excessive. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections by noticing that it cannot go beyond the decree as it is to execute the decree, as is passed by the Court. It was further noticed that admittedly, earlier the petitioner filed objections which were dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2006 and even a revision preferred to this Court against that order was also dismissed. In those objections, a plea was sought to be raised that she owns only one residential house. Even that was considered to be not meritorious. Keeping in view the fact that the Executing Court is merely to execute the decree which is passed in favour of the Decree Holder in letter and spirit, there is no question of its going into the issue of rate of interest and also the fact as to whether subsequent to the passing of the decree, any One Time Settlement Scheme has been floated by the bank. It is a matter to be dealt with by the Judgment Debtor and the bank and not by the court in execution proceedings. With this material on record, I do not find that any illegality has been C.R. No. 174 of 2009 [2] committed by the learned Executing Court in dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.1.2009 mk