1LE ^: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. 3 8'^/ / 2005 PETITIONER: (Judgement Debtors) 1. Malikram S /o Late Shri Bishau Satnaiiii, aged abou^^Tyears, ^i 2. Sukhiram, S /o Late Shri Bishau f^ Satnami, aged about^.^, years, / r7S / ^£/>/ s? ' ^ ^Z^*' / 3- smt SaduBai, W/o Late Shri -" -}^L* » ^ ^w/ " /w/ // .^ / <? cst?' <f ^ fj. ^^w ^?'^^( ^^ "• ^ RESPONDENTS: (Decree Holders) Bishau Satiaami, aged about jS ^- years, All R/o Village Chandiyapathra, Thana Simga, Tehasil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State Bank oflndia, Through the Branch Manager, Bhatapara Branch, Disfaict Raipw, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBTION, CERTIORARI. AND ANY OTHER WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. '^. ^?^f< \3T^^iqi«q;tyTrt1<1<i'6;Rlc6W^ *IIHc^6 @?^?T^ *.....................v...A...,....^F^gQQ sn^^q^p ^3^) ^o ^^TqiTf^TTcp ^3TW^$Trf)^i<b ^TTW^rflU 3n^^T Constitlution 22.8.2005 ; Shri Alok Pandey, Heard on admission. The petitioner has pr Article 227 of the legality, propriety & correc| passed by the Executing Cj< District Judge, Baloda Baj District Judge rejected petitioner hereinjunder Or^ of the C,P.C. for defermenl and making the payment ir^ I have heard learnedl perused the impugned orde|r Perusal of impugned tune of Rs.5,35,i995/- wa^ herein on 7.1,2003 and| decretal aiiiount the impugned order paid on| Court below rejected thc the petitioner/jitdgment-d^ previous order of the Coj making any effbrts to am.ount, In this coirnection, s| 20 of the CPC envisages decree ihe Court jnay, on cou|isel for the petitioner. petjit thlat SP/FS/2005-20,000 cpiqIcO<Tl<1 ^l+loT^'f^St \I^I^CK ^3Tf^T^?T ^ferred this writ petition under of India qiiestioning the Itness of order dated 22.6.2005 burt i,e. learued 2nd Additional ^ar whereby learned Additional iie applications filed by tlie ter 20 Rule 11 and Section 151 of payinent of decretal aniount installments. counsel for the petitioner and >rder shows that a decree to the passed against the petitioner thereafter, against the said :ioner hercin up to date of |y Rs.45,000/-, therefore, the ^pplication on the ground that ^btor has not complied with the iirt and he is deliberatcly not the paymeirt of decretal diake ib-rule (2) of Rule 11 ofOrder <safter the passing ofany such fhe application.of ihe judgment- XI-HC.78 ^fpraiTm^TT^ \jwc| ^l^llrt^, tP-^WK?, ROW^ ?.^.ls>C 3TI^5T I^P (4c|i^<s|<E{) ^200 3?I^$T^TR<rti<h ^Tr^n^^TPOTn^ ^^^( y ./ ^ S^TTSR^rfi?T W^^T t^ debtor and with the consent\ payment of ihe amount deci\i be ?nade by instalbnents on inierest, the attachment of\ debtor, or the taking of seci^ri ii thinks fit." In the first instance, t|he any consent in the matt^r amount in installm.ents ndr request made by the peti| rejected the sanie. In view of the above ft there is no infirmity & illeg^ same does not reqiiire i4 iiivoking extraordiiiary juri| the Constitution of Indi^ disaiissed, In view of this orderl ;stand disposed of, <pi<<[o<Ttvi <ii+iwV^'f^<-<9 K(^I^I\ ^3lRl+l3ff^^T of ihe decree-holder, order ihat >ed shall be posiponed or shatl 3uch terms as to the pay^nent of ihe property of the judgrnent- irity from him, or otherwise, as decree-liolder has not given for accepting the decretal the Coiirt below found the tioner genuine and therefore, acts, I am of the opinion that ility in the order impugiied and Lterference by tliis Court by Isdictioii iinder Article 227 of Therefore, the petition is I.A. Nos.7139/05 &7140/05 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge