B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE instant civil revision petition by the defendant/judgment debtor is directed against a docket order in I. A. (SR) No. 2863/97 in Os. No. 281/92 dated 26-2-1997 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed O. S. No. 281/92 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 58,610-00 together with interest payable thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit is decreed by the II Addl. Subordinate Judge, R. R. District on 9-12-1996. The suit itself was decreed on the basis of a written-statement and the oral evidence of the petitioner/ defendant tentatively agreeing to pay the suit amount. The learned Subordinate Judge basing on the admitted facts held that the admitted facts need not be proved.

( 3 ) IT is required to notice that the petitioner/defendant prayed the trial Court to pass a Judgment and decree for grant of instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,500. 00 per month. However, it appears that later on, the petitioner/defendant during the course of his evidence prayed for an instalment decree to enable him to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 1000. 00 per month. The learned Subordinate Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after consideration of the evidence available on record, particularly the statement of the petitioner/defendant passed the decree directing the petitioner/defendant to pay money due to the respondent/plaintiff in instalments at the rate of Rs. 1000-00 per month commencing from January, 1997. The petitioner/defendant was further directed to pay back the suit amount within first week of every month. The trial Court imposed a specific condition that in case the petitioner fails to pay the suit amount in terms of the instalment decree, the respondent/plaintiff shall be at liberty to recover the suit amount in lumpsum with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the decree till realisation. Thus, it is evident that the trial Court granted a conditional decree and that too at the instance and request of the petitioner/defendant.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner/ defendant filed an application in the Court below to condone the delay in paying the two monthly instalments for the months of January and February, 1997. The reasons are self-explanatory and stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is that application which is dismissed by the Court below by order dated 26-2-1997. In the instant C. R. P. , the Court need not express any opinion whatsoever as to whether the grounds stated by the petitioner to condone the delay in payment of two monthly instalments for the months of January and February, 1997 are genuine or not. The question is as to whether the Court had committed any irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction in summarily rejecting the application. I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute in the instant case that the nature of decree granted by the trial Court was a conditional one. It is a conditional decree and such decree was granted to facilitate the petitioner/defendant herein to discharge his obligation and repay the amount by way of instalments. Any order as prayed for would amount to waiving and modifying the conditions incorporated in the decree itself. If the petitioner had chosen to file any application to review the decree, it would have been a separate matter altogether. The trial Court could not have granted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner as long as the conditional decree granted by it is in force. The Apex Court in Mahanth Ram Das vs. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 88 observed that; "the procedural orders though peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. They do not, however, completely estop a Court from taking note of events and circumstances w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document