SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-4-2004 passed by learned Judge Banking Court-Ill. Lahore whereby respondent was allowed to pay decretal amount in instalments.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Allied Bank of Pakistan (appellant) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,24.497 against the respondents and the same was decreed to the extent of Rs.3.26.516 vide judgment dated 5-9-2003.
Thereafter appellant filed execution petition and during execution proceedings Gul Badeen. respondent made statement that he wanted to pay decretal amount in easy instalments. He further stated that he could pay Rs.5,000 P.M. After recording his statement learned trial Court allowed him to pay decretal amount in easy instalments (Rs.5,000 P.M.) vide order dated 23-4- 2004. Hence this appeal.
2-A. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. As mentioned above, the appellant had filed suit for recovery of Rs.4.24,497 against the respondents but the same was decreed to the extent of Rs.3,26,516. The appellant filed execution petition and Court auctioneer was accordingly appointed for the sale of property owned by judgment-debtors. However, on 23-4-2004 respondent/judgment-debtor made statement that he would pay Rs.5,000 p.m. and Executing Court permitted him to pay Rs.5,000 p.m. vide impugned order. The case of the appellant is that impugned order is arbitrary and illegal as there was no provision of law empowering the learned Executing Court to allow the respondent to make payment in instalments, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. According to C.P.C. and Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance. 2001 learned Judge Banking Court had no power to permit the judgment-debtor to pay decretal amount in instalments. Learned counsel for the respondents too concedes the proposition. However, he has argued that learned Judge Banking Court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration, the financial position of the respondent/judgment-debtor. Also that learned Judge Banking Court had inherent power to allow the respondent to pay decretal amount in instalments, therefore. impugned order is proper. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of force because according to law learned Executing Court could not allow the respondents to pay decretal amount in instalments. So we find that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted and impugned order is accordingly set aside. No order as to costs.