' This is Execution Second Appeal challenging the orders, dated 30-11-1982 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore and dated 26-3-1983 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. An ex parte decree for Rs.28,289.41 with _interest at 9% per annum from 1-10-1970 till the realization of the entire decretal amount was passed against the appellant in favour of the respondents. M/s. National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Lahore. The respondent filed an execution application. The appellant undertook to pay the decretal amount in instalments. The offer was accepted by the decree-holder. The appellant deposited Rs.27,000 in instalments up to 1-6-1977.
Thereafter, one of judgment-debtors namely, Ikram-ul-Haq filed objection petition under section 47, C.P.C. That since an amount of Rs.27,000 out of the decretal amount of Rs.28,289.41 had already been deposited and he was prepared to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,289.41 therefore, the execution petition be dismissed. The learned Civil Judge vide his order, dated 26-11-1981 observed that the version of the learned counsel and judgment-debtor that the entire decretal amount had been paid to the decree-holder was not borne out from the record. According to him though the decretal amount stood paid but interest on the said amount was still unpaid. In consequence warrants for attachment were issued against the judgment-debtor. The latter filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide his order, dated 6-4-1982 remanded the matter to the executing Court with the observation to give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor to prove his contention. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore vide his order, dated 30-11-1982 directed the judgment-debtor to pay the balance of Rs.15,935.41 to the decree-holder by 5-12-1982 calculating the interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple interest. The appeal was again filed against the said order. It was urged before the learned Additional District Judge, that there had been a compromise between the parties on the waiver of interest due on the decretal amount and as such order about its payment was not justified. The learned Additional District Judge, observed that there was no mention anywhere of the said compromise, the decree-holder Bank had also denied any such compromise. In consequence the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal with costs on 26-3-1983. Hence this Second Appeal.
3. It is contended that the Courts below have failed to take notice of the compromise between the parties whereby the decree-holder had relinquished its claim in respect of interest on the decretal amount.
4. The contention of the learned counsel is not borne out from the record. The order, dated 12-6- 1973 passed on the suit file by the decree-holder is to the following effect:- "As a result of my finding above, the plaintiff is granted an ex parte decree for recovery of Rs.28,289.41 against the defendants with costs of this suit. The plaintiff is also awarded interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-10-1970 till the realization of the entire decretal amount."
On 26-11-1981 the executing Court passed the following order on the objection petition of the appellant.
"A perusal of the record does not support the version of the learned counsel for the judgment- debtor that entire decretal amount stands paid to the decree-holder. Record showing that decretal amount stands paid but interest on decretal amount still stands unpaid amounting to Rs.1,749.98."
' The record is completely silent as to the date and the forum before which the alleged compromise had been arrived at between the parties whereby the decree-holder had relinquished its claim about the payment of interest by the appellant/judgment-debtor. It appears that the judgment-debtor has set up this plea to avoid satisfaction of the decree and to prolong the matter.
' In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor (appellant) and finding no legal defect or lacuna in the order of the Courts below, I dismiss the appeal.