MOHANLAL Vs. BANSHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by Mohanlal and Nihalchand against the appellate decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi dated 5th November, 1958, whereby a direction given by the Munsif, Abu Road for the payment of a decree against them in further easier instalments was reversed.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are as follows: - On 5th October, 1960, a consent decree was passed in favour of the respondent Bansilal for an amount of Rs. 675/- payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 20/- each. On Oct. 14, 1957, the present appellants put up an application before the Munsif. Abu Road under sec. 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. XXXI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for re-fixation of the instalments on easier terms. After giving notice to the respondent, the Munsif accepted the application and directed that the remaining decretal amount shall be payable in instalments ; i. e. Rs. 50/-payable on 15th May of each year and Rs. 25/- payable on 15th November of each year.

(3.) THERE is yet another approach to the matter. A decree having once been passed, any subsequent order or direction fixing instalments, or for that matter, re-fixing the instalments, is clearly a case of varying the decree or bringing into existence an amended decree and naturally, therefore, it being a decree, it must be held appealable. In this view, I am fully supported by a Full Bench decision of the Nagpur High Court (4) and also by the observation of the Privy Council in the case mentioned above (5 ). In view of what has been stated above, I am quite clear that an order under sec. 24 of the Act must be considered as an order of the court in a suit and it results in a decree, which must be held applicable under sec. 96 of the C. P. C. The lower court was justified in entertaining the appeal.