SHIRKRISHNA MISRA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri M.G. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the applicant heard on admission.

(2.) The non-applicant No. 1 had filed a suit No. 3-B of 84 against the present applicant and non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of the money. A decree was passed against the present applicant and non-applicants 2 and 3 by the Additional Judge to the Court at District Judge, Ujjain on 17.8.84. In the suit itself the present applicant had made a prayer for allowing the payment by instalments. The decree later on was transferred to the Indore Court for execution wherein it was registered as MJC No. 4 of 84. In that MJC the applicant stated his financial condition and again made a prayer for instalments. The Court after recording the evidence passed the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) After hearing Shirt Upadhyaya on the question of admission I find that the order of the learned Additional District Judge refusing to allow the instalments of Rs. 500/- per annum has rightly been disallowed by the lower Court in view of the evidence on record. From the statement of the applicant itself it is manifest that when the application for instalment was made the daughter of the applicant was in service. She was getting Rs. 400/- per month, but when the application was moved in the Indore Court for instalments the daughter was married and the applicant was getting Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. Looking to the statement about his work and the income the Court arrived at the finding as a fact that the financial condition of the applicant is not such as has been stated by him. It has further weighed with the lower Court that the applicant could have paid atleast Rs. 7000/- till the date of application had he paid even Rs. 700/- per month from the date of the decree which was passed 10 years back. It was also found that the applicant working. Therefore, in the light of the evidence the order refusing the instalments cannot be held be erroneous.