AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No. 610 of 1989 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai. The suit has been filed for
recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,37,373.95 due on a mortgage. The preliminary decree was passed and thereafter the final decree was also passed as
early as 26th March 1992. After the passing of the final decree, the respondent herein, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 20,
Rule 11, C.P.C. seeking permission to pay the decree amount on instalments. The said application was filed on 16.6.97 nearly after five years
subsequent to the final decree. The lower court by order dated 23.7.98 has permitted the respondent to pay the entire decree amount on
instalments at Rs.20,000 p.m. Aggrieved by the same the present revision has been filed.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order 20, Rule 11, C.P.C. has no application for the mortgage decree. The said
provision can be made applicable only for a simple money decree. He also relied upon the judgment of this court in (1) Shantilal v. Sankarasubha,
AIR 1979 Mad. 18; (2) State Bank of India v. Neeru Plastics Works, Ludhiana (3) United Bank of India Vs. The New Glencoe Tea Co. Ltd., .
In all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been categorically held that Order 20, Rule 11, C.P.C. has its
application to simple money decree and not to decrees for sale of property for realisation of money due and that provision on its own terms can
have no application to a mortgage suit, be it a suit on a mortgage in respect of immovable property or on a mortgage in respect of movables.
On the basis of the well laid principles, this Court is of the view that the order of the lower court cannot be sustained. Accordingly the same is
set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently CMP.4604 of 1999 is closed.