C. R. No. 6834 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6834 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 15, 2010 Baljit Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State Bank of India and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Minakshi Poswal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Baljit Singh – judgment debtor no.1, who is son of Prem Singh judgment debtor no.2, has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, thereby dismissing objections (Annexure P-3) filed by the judgment-debtors (petitioner and proforma respondent no.2) in execution petition Annexure P-2 filed by decree-holder State Bank of India – respondent no.1. Suit filed by respondent no.1 against petitioner and respondent C. R. No. 6834 of 2010 2 no.2 for recovery of Rs.81,506/- with pendente lite and future interest was compromised in Lok Adalat vide Award dated 28.07.2007. The judgment- debtors agreed to pay Rs.60,307/- to the plaintiff in four instalments i.e. three instalments of Rs.15,000/- each, payable up to 10.08.2007, 10.10.2007 and 10.12.2007 and the fourth instalment of balance amount of Rs.15,307/- up to 10.02.2008. However, it was also stipulated that in the event of default, the plaintiff-bank shall be entitled to recover the entire suit amount along with agreed rate of interest. Admittedly, the judgment-debtors did not pay the aforesaid instalments as per Award of the Lok Adalat. Consequently, respondent no.1-decree holder filed execution petition for recovery of the balance decretal amount as judgment-debtors had already paid Rs.25,000/- out of the said amount. Judgment-debtors filed objections alleging that the decree- holder has not credited the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the judgment- debtors. It was also pleaded that judgment-debtors are ready to pay the balance decretal amount in instalments i.e. Rs.60,307/- less amount of Rs.25,000/- already deposited. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment- debtors have already deposited Rs.25,000/- towards the decretal amount and C. R. No. 6834 of 2010 3 are ready to pay the balance amount in instalments. The contention is misconceived and distorted one and is completely untenable. The petitioner is pretending as if his request for payment of the balance decretal amount in instalments has been declined by the Executing Court. However, the real dispute is about the quantum of balance decretal amount recoverable from the judgment-debtors. The petitioner, under the garb of his prayer for payment of balance amount in instalments, does not want to pay the full balance amount, but wants to pay the reduced balance amount. This cannot be permitted. Admittedly, judgment-debtors did not pay the instalments in time, as stipulated in the Award of Lok Adalat, as per compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not even aware as to on which date the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the judgment- debtors. However, decree-holder Bank entered into compromise by reducing the suit amount in the hope that the reduced amount would be paid on the stipulated dates. The judgment-debtors, however, did not fulfill their assurance of paying the said amount in time. The very purpose of reducing the recoverable amount by compromise, therefore, stood defeated. Even otherwise, Award of the Lok Adalat itself stipulated that in the event of default in payment of instalments, the Bank shall be entitled to recover the entire suit amount along with the interest at the agreed rate. In view thereof, the judgment-debtors are liable to pay the balance amount as per Award of the Lok Adalat i.e. suit amount with agreed rate of interest less the amount C. R. No. 6834 of 2010 4 of Rs.25,000/- already paid. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court nor it suffers from any jurisdictional error. On the other hand, the impugned order is fully justified and perfectly legal and valid. The revision petition is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. October 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE