Civil Revision No. 6070 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6070 of 2011 Date of decision. 03.10.2011 Smt. Uma Sharma and another .... Petitioners Versus State Bank of India ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by the judgment debtors under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal whereby the application filed by the petitioners, for seeking permission to deposit the settled amount in easy installments has been dismissed. The facts of the case are quite simple. State Bank of India had brought a suit for recovery and the same was decreed. State Bank of India then brought execution application, in which warrant of attachment of the property of the judgment debtors/petitioners had been issued. On 10.09.2011 the warrant of attachment had been received unexecuted. The parties, however, reached a settlement in the Civil Revision No. 6070 of 2011 --2-- meanwhile and a statement was made before the Executing Court that the parties have settled the amount payable to the decree holder at Rs.1,10,000/-, which was offered to be paid on 17.09.2011. Consequently, the execution application was adjourned to 17.09.2011 for making payment. On 17.09.2011 instead of bringing money to be paid to the decree holder, the judgment debtors moved an application for permission to deposit the settled amount in easy installments. It was claimed that they are unable to pay the aforesaid amount in lump- sum as they are dependent on pension only. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Executing Court dismissed the application and directed the decree holder to furnish the list of properties of the judgment debtors for warrant of attachment to be issued qua those properties for 18.10.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are pensioners and they are not in a position to pay the amount settled in one go. He has, therefore, prayed for accepting the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioners to pay the settled amount in easy installments. Civil Revision No. 6070 of 2011 --3-- On 10.09.2011 when the parties settled an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, to be paid by the judgment debtors to wipe out the claim of the decree holder under the decree in question, offer was made to pay the same on 17.09.2011. In the application, it is only averred that the judgment debtors are not able to pay the above said amount in lump sum. What was the reason on 10.09.2011 to make the offer of payment of this amount on 17.09.2011 and what was the reason bringing the judgment debtors to a position where they could not pay the said amount in lump sum, are not specified anywhere. It cannot be said that on 10.09.2011 there was any misunderstanding with the judgment debtors with regard to their capacity to pay the settled amount in lump sum on 17.09.2011. The petitioners have recently retired and they were in Government service. The retiral benefits must have been in a sum of more than Rs.1,10,000/-. Nothing has come on the record to show that they could not pay the settled amount in lump sum. In these circumstances, learned Executing Court was fully justified in declining the prayer of the petitioners and passing the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, merits dismissal and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 03.10.2011 dinesh