BADRI PRASAD Vs. BHARTIYA STATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order dated January 4, 1992, passed by the court below in an execution case.

(2.) Heard counsel for revisionist. Learned counsel argued that the court below has wrongly refused to fix instalments in the present case of execution of the decree which power it has under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Civil Procedure Code. The argument is that there was no objection by the decree-holder and, therefore, the court below had to fix the instalments. I am not inclined to accept this argument. Under Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the consent of the decree-holder must be express. Merely because the decree-holder did not file any objection to the application, the revisionist does not get any right for claiming payment of the decrectal amount in instalments. The judgment-debtor cannot be allowed to make payment in instalments by considering the non-filing of objections to be an implied consent of the decree holder. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon Thomas A Chappie v. E. Y. Mansa Brothers, AIR 1925 Rang 33, in support of his argument. That case does not support the proposition argued by learned counsel that, in the absence of objections by the decree holder, instalments are to be fixed. Under the particular circumstances of that case, the court granted instalments as the judgment-debtor was being deprived of his livelihood. The case is no authority for the proposition raised in the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon B. Tata Charlu v. Konadala Ramachandara Reddi [1883] ILR 7 Mad 153. In that case, Section 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1877, came up for interpretation which was a provision similar to Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The interpretation which was given was to the effect that an order under Section 210 of the Civil Procedure Code alters the decree and the decree can be executed only subject to such alteration. In the present case, counsel for the revisionist has not argued that any modification or alteration in the decree was made or sought. In view of this fact, the aforesaid case is also not applicable to the present case. In my opinion, an order under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Civil Procedure Code, for payment of the decretal amount in instalments can be passed only with the consent of the decree-holder and the court below was right in rejecting the application of the judgment-debtor/revisionist for the relief of making the payment of the decretal amount in instalments.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is dismissed summarily.