The executing Court is obligated to decide disputes in a judicial manner and should allow parties an opportunity to lead evidence if they desire.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated August 1, 1988 whereby he refused to review his earlier order dated February 23, 1987.

2. Normally this court will not interfere with interlocutory orders. In this case, I am satisfied that the learned trial judge has dealt with the matter in a most cursory manner. He did not try to understand the case pleaded by the J. Ds and hasten to dispose of the applications filed by them in a summary manner.

3. The respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 97,541.15 with interest against the petitioners and others. The suit was decreed on March 23, 1982 and the learned Judge directed that the decretal amount be paid in instalments of Rs. 3000.00 per month from April to September and at the rate of Rs. 5000.00 per month from October to March every year and the defendant was enjoined to make payment of the first instalment of Rs. 3000.00 in May 1982.

4. The Decree-holder took out execution which was registered as Execution No. 34-A/27-3-85. The petitioner Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to JD) filed objections under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the decree stood satisfied. Under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all objections relating to execution, satisfaction and discharge of a decree have to be decided by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. The objections under Sec.47 of the Civil Procedure Code should not have been disposed of summarily. The executing Court is not enjoined by the statute to frame issues and dispose of the same in the same manner as a suit, nevertheless the executing Court is under obligation to decide the dispute in a judicial manner. If the parties want to lead evidence, he ought to have allowed them an opportunity. In the instant case, the JDs came with a positive plea that they had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 out of the decretal amount but the bank did not release the pledged goods of proportionate value. The J. Ds pleaded that the amount was deposited in the bank. An opportunity should have been afforded to prove the assertion made in the objection petition. The executing Court should not have dismissed the objection petition without going into the merits. Subsequent application filed by the JDs for recalling the order dated February 23, 1987 although not sustainable at law nevertheless the matter has been brought to my notice and having gone through the earlier order, I find that the same cannot be sustained. There is an apparent illegality. Consequently, I set aside, the order dated February 23, 1987 and August 1, 1988. This case is transferred on the file of Shri A.K.Suri, Sub-Judge, Chandigarh, who will dispose of the objections filed by the JDs after giving them an opportunity to lead evidence. If after recording the evidence, the learned Sub-Judge is satisfied that the version of the JDs is correct, he will pass such order as is warranted. He will dispose of the objection petition expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Subordinate Judge on 8th September, 1989. Parties to bear their own costs in this Court.