GOBINDA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TITLE Suit No. 31 of 1960 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff) for partition was compromised on 31 -10 -1960. By the terms of the compromise Plaintiff gave up an his right, title and interest in the disputed properties on Respondent's (Defendant -1's) agreeing to pay Rs. 3225/ - to the Appellant in full satisfaction of his claim. The decree directed that this amount would be paid within six months, failing which Respondent was to pay interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum. On the Respondent's failure to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the Appellant filed Execution Case 63/63 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore. The Respondent filed a petition under Order 20, Rule 2(2), Code of Civil Procedure on 2 -12 -1903 praying for instalments. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 18 -4 -1914 allowed the Respondent's prayer. He was directed to pay the decretal dues in four annual instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 1000/ - was to be paid on 15 -7 -1964 and the balance was payable on the 15th of July of the succeeding years at the rate of Rs. 750/ - till the entire amount was paid. On failure to pay anyone of the instalments, the entire balance of the decretal dues was at once payable. Against this order the miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff.

(2.) MR . S.C. Das raised three contentions:

(3.) THE second contention is that on failure of the judgment -debtor to pay the decretal dues within the stipulated period of six months at directed in the decree, further instalments should not have been granted. A reference to Sub -rule (1) of Order 20, Rule 11 would make it clear that even at the time the decree is passed, there must be sufficient reason for postponing the payment of the decretal dues or for granting installments. The expression "sufficient reason" postulates that the Court would take into consideration the amount of the decretal dues and the circumstances of the judgment -debtor. The burden would always be on the judgment -debtor to plead and prove that his circumstances are such that he cannot pay up the decretal dues immediately or without instalments.