IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2654 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.1.2009. Municipal Committee, Narwana ....Petitioner Versus Parveen Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned Executing Court dated April 22, 2006, in execution of a decree in favour of respondent/decree holder. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,58,499.51 with future interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of filing of the suit till its decision. The objections were filed on the ground that the financial position of the petitioner/judgment-debtor is not good and the property which has been attached for sale is part and partial of residential house allotted to Secretary, Municipal Committee, Narwana. The objection was dismissed with the observation that the attachment of the plot was made vide order dated September 29, 2001 where no stand was taken by the Municipal Committee that the plot in question, which was attached, is part and partial of residential house of the Secretary Municipal Committee, Narwana. The another plea raised in the objection was that the rate of interest granted by the trial court @ 1.5% per month is on the higher side. However, even that objection was also found to be C.R. No.2654 of 2006 (O&M) -2- misconceived by the learned Executing Court while dismissing the objections after noticing the fact that judgment-debtor had filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, taking the plea of rate of interest and the same was dismissed. Even otherwise such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised in the execution proceedings as the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and tinker with the term of decree at the time of execution thereof. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. In the impugned order the schedule for sale of the property attached was fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as the only interest is required to be paid to the respondent/decree-holder, the petitioner shall pay the same to the respondent within two months from today. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted two months time to comply with the terms of the decree, failing which the learned Executing Court will proceed with execution of the decree by sale of the attached property. (RAJESH BINDAL) 14.1.2009 JUDGE Reema