The civil revision is directed against orders, dated 12-9-2002 and 26-9-2002 respectively passed by Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Rajanpur.
2. Brief facts which led to the civil revision are that respondents' suit under Order 37, C. P. C. For recovery of Rs.2,00,000 was decreed against the petitioner on 24-1-1998. An application was filed for execution of the said decree during proceedings whereof it was settled between the parties on 21-3-2000 that judgment-debtor (petitioner) would pay to the decree-holder (respondent) a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of, instalments after every six months.
3. The petitioner could not pay the instalments according to the said settlement whereupon the respondent again moved the executing Court for realization of the decretal amount; the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of warrants and for fixation of easy instalments which was disposed of by the executing Court on 12-9-2002 directing him to pay the decretal amount in instalments at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month. Petitioner's appeal against that order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge on 26-9-2002.
4. The aforesaid orders are assailed in this civil revision wherein pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared and has produced a certificate issued by the Manager, HBL, Fazilpur, District Rajanpur wherein it is certified that Abdul Sattar Haideri (petitioner) has adjusted his liabilities with the Branch on 30-12-2000 by depositing Rs.1,99,768 (principal) and Rs.25,632 law charges.
6. It is urged by the petitioner's counsel that both the' Courts below did not consider that the petitioner was suffering from T.B. And had spent all the money on his treatment due to which nothing was left with .Him to pay for the instalments; that according to the settlement, decretal amount was to be paid in instalments of Rs.10,000 after every six months, therefore, the petitioner could not be directed to pay the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.5,000 and that executing Court had no jurisdiction to vary or to modify the terms of the settlement made between the parties regarding execution of the decree and that the petitioner is a poor person and cannot pay the decretal amount.'
7. Arguments of the petitioner's counsel, are devoid of any force because the said settlement was flouted by .The petitioner himself as he did not pay a single instalment due despite a lapse of 2-1/2 years, did not bother to convey to the executing Court about his alleged ailment and his inability to pay the instalments; did not furnish any evidence regarding the said ailment or any receipt for the purchase of medicine by him; his conduct was not above board and he moved the application for the first time after he was summoned on the application of the decree---holder through bailable and then non-bailable warrants. By non-payment of instalments the settlement was revoked by him and he could not claim execution in accordance with the said settlement. Anyhow, according to the said settlement first instalment was due for payment on 21-9-2000; second was due on 21- 2-2001 third was due on 21-8-2001, fourth was due on 21-2-2002 and the fifth instalment was due on 21-8-2002. The impugned order was passed by Additional District Judge on 26-9-2002. By that due five instalments of Rs.10000 each within intervening period of six months had become due against the petitioner amounting to Rs.50,000. I have asked the petitioner's counsel that if he wants the execution of the decree according to the settlement made between the parties, would the petitioner be willing to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000 which had become due and which was not paid by him. His answer was in the negative which means that the petitioner is not even willing to abide by that settlement regarding which it is alleged that the Court had committed illegality .In not ordering execution in accordance with the said settlement.
8. The certificate produced by the respondent's counsel, issued by Manager, HBL shows that after the settlement was made in the Court on 21-3-2000, the petitioner had deposited, in connection with some other liability, in the Bank Rs.1,99,768 plus Rs.25,632 on 30-12-2000. His first instalment of Rs.10,000 was due prior to that on 21-9-2000 which was not paid by him on the pretext of ailment and paucity of fund. This reflects that contention of the petitioner that he was ill and had become pauper due to ailment is false.
9. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, did not entitle him even to the leniency shown to him by the executing Court by allowing him to pay the decretal amount in instalments at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month.
10. By violating the settlement, the entire decretal amount could have been ordered to be paid in lump sum; enough leniency has already been shown to the petitioner which he did not deserve.
11. The impugned order does not suffer from irregular" exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction. In revisional jurisdiction High Court cannot interfere with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of the subordinate Courts. Being devoid of any merit, the petition is hereby dismissed.