SHRI RAM Vs. TEEKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal comes up on the application filed by the appellant paying there that the time granted by this Court by its order dated 21.4.2004 or deposit of 75% of the decretal amount may be entended to enable the appellant to deposit the same. The prayer of the appellant has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent decree-holder, stating therein that the appellant has come after a period of nearly one year for seeking extension and had previously also been granted indulgence by this Court for extension of time which was allowed by this Court on 3.8.2004 but inspite of the same the appellant has failed to deposit the said amount.

(2.) Faced with this situation the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client is indebted to the Bank as well as the respondent-decree-holder and as a result he is facing great hardship in trying to comply with the direction of this Court and as such the order dated 21.4.2004 requiring deposit of 75% amount by the appellant may be modified. At first this Court was not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not intending to press his appeal in case a scheme for repayment of the entire amount under the decree for Rs. 95,000.00 in installment is allowed to be made and the requirement of paying interest at the rate of 12% as directed under the decree is waived. To the aforesaid proposal the learned counsel for the respondent has also responded positively as he submits that it would be in the interest of his client also not to keep this appeal pending but a scheme for repayment of the entire amount may be framed and the appeal be disposed of.

(3.) Both the parties have submitted that the appeal may be disposed of in the manner that in the first instance of appellant pay to the respondent-decree-holder an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 by 30th April, 2005 as the appellant is reported to be an agriculturist and would be in a position to reply the amount only after the harvest of the crop. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant would pay the next instalment of Rs. 10,000.00 by the 30th Nov., 2005. As such in the first year 2005 the appellant would pay to the decree-holder respondent an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 as indicated above. In the following years 2006-2007-2008 the appellant would pay two instalments of Rs, 10,000.00 each on or before 30th April and 30th Nov. of the respective years. The appellant further agrees that he would pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,0001-in the year 2009 by 30th April, 2009. Accordingly the appellant would pay to the decree-holder-respondent a total amount of Rs. 1,10,0001- (Rs. one lac ten thousand only) as indicated above.