Kandasamy Chettiar vs V. Subramaniam and P. Manoharan

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

Animadverting upon the order dated 04.01.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in E.P.No. 271 of 2005 in O.S.No.

413 of 1999, this civil revision petition is focussed. Heard both.

A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts would run thus:

The Executing Court passed the impugned order to the effect that the judgment debtor shall pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month in the E.P. for

sale. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the decree holder filed the CRP during the year 2008 and it is still pending.

When this Court raised the query as to how the Executing Court could pass such an order in an E.P. for sale, the learned counsel for the

judgment debtor would point out that he has to get instructions as to whether by this time the decree debt was discharged.

The learned counsel for the decree holder would submit that the said fact could be verified by the Court itself, if this Court directs the lower

Court to verify the said fact and if there are still dues, the property might be brought for sale by proceeding with the E.P.

I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the decree holder.

At this juncture I would like to fumigate my mind with Order 20 Rule 11 of CPC which is extracted hereunder:

Decree may direct payment by instalments

(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may for any sufficient reason incorporate in the decree after hearing

such of the parties who had appeared personally or by pleader at the last hearing, before judgment, an order that payment of the amount decreed

shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments, with or without interest, notwithstanding anything contained in the contract under which the

money is payable,

(2) Order, after decree, for payment by instalments'' After the passing of any such decree the Court may, on the application of the judgment-

debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments

on such terms as to the payment of interest, the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, or the taking of security from him, or

otherwise, as it thinks fit.

A mere poring over and perusal of the said provision would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Court which passed the money

decree could also order for instalment payment, but here that was not done so. However long after that, in the interest of justice, the Executing

Court ordered as above. The order was passed during the year 2008 and now we are in 2012. Had the judgment debtor been diligent enough in

making use of that opportunity, by this time substantial amount should have been paid. Be that as it may, now the decree holder cannot be

prevented from reaping the fruit of the decree.

In this connection I would like to recollect the following maxim:

Parum est latam esse sententiam, nisi mandetur executioni It is not enough that judgment has been given, if it is not committed to execution.

It is not enough if decrees are passed, but it should be committed to execution. Having that in mind, the Executing Court shall do well to see that if

there are still dues recoverable by the decree holder, it shall proceed with the sale as per law and do the needful without further delaying the

process.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.