The executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, and if the decree does not contain a penalty clause for default in payment, the judgment-debtor may not be liable for penal consequences.

R.L. Anand, J. - This revision, I am disposing of after going through the grounds of revision as no assistance has been provided by the counsel for the parties. The controversy is very short.

2. The revision has been filed by Shri P.C. Bahal, resident of Kothi No. 70, Sector 2B, Chandigarh and it is against the order dated 17.9.1982, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh who dismissed the execution application of the decree-holder Shri P.C. Bahal, filed against the J.D. Shri Gurmail Singh.

3. Shri P.C. Bahal filed a suit against Shri Gurmail Singh for the recovery of Rs. 18,000/-. The matter was compromised between the parties and the suit was decreed by the trail Court in favour of the plaintiff Shri Bahal on 27.8.1980 in terms of the statements made by the parties. It was agreed upon that in case the judgment-debtor pays a sum of Rs. 17,500/- to the decree- holder, the entire decree shall be deemed to have been satisfied otherwise the decree-holder will be entitled to the remaining amount through execution. The amount was supposed to be paid as follows :-

Rs. 5000/- 27.8.1980

Rs. 6500/- 31.12.1980

Rs. 6000/- 31.3.1981

4. The judgment-debtor did not pay the amount as per the stipulated dates. Rather he paid the amount in the following manner :-

27.08.1980 Rs. 5000/-

31.12.1980 Rs. 4000/-

26.02.1981 Rs. 2500/-

14.04.1981 Rs. 1000/-

5. Further during the pendency of the execution the remaining amount was paid. According to the decree-holder, the J.D. committed the default and, therefore, he is liable to pay the remaining decretal amount in terms of the decree dated 27.8.1980 in lumpsum. Since the contract has not been adhered to by the J.D. Shri Gurmail Singh, therefore, the decree-holder is also entitled to interest.

Notice of the execution was given to the J.D. who stated that the entire amount under the decree has been paid to the D.H. and he has filed the present application fraudulently. It was also submitted that the decree-holder has consented to the late payment otherwise he would have made the payment in time.

6. The following issues were framed by the executing Court on 14.5.1980 :

1. Whether the J.D. has paid the entire decretal amount as alleged ? OPD

2. Whether the property sought to be attached is not liable to attachment ? OP JD

3. Relief.

7. While deciding issue No. 1, the executing Court held that the entire decretal amount has been paid to the decree-holder and the decree has been satisfied.

8. The following reasons were given by the executing Court which are contained in para No. 6 of the impugned order :-

"The copy of the decree is Ex.O4. While decreeing the suit with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation it was ordered that the decree shall be deemed to have been satisfied in case the judgment-debtor paid a sum of Rs. 17500/- as under :-

Rs. 5,000/- on 27.8.1980.

Rs. 6,500/- on or before 31.12.1980.

Rs. 6,000/- on or before 31.3.1981.

A copy of the compromise and the statements made in the Court are Ex.O1 and Ex-O2 respectively. Ex.O3 is chit pertaining the amounts received by the decree-holder from time to time. Ex.O3 shows that the following amounts were received by the decree-holder on the dates noted against each.

26.12.1980 Rs. 4000/-

26.02.1981 Rs. 2500/-

14.04.1981 Rs. 1000/-

27.05.1981 Rs. 2500/-

24.06.1981 Rs. 2500/-

In addition a sum of Rs. 5,000/- had been paid to the decree-holder on August 27, 1980. In this way, the judgment debtor has paid a total sum of Rs. 17500/- to the decree-holder, although, the receipt of only a sum of Rs. 12500/- has been accepted by the decree-holder in his application. This application for execution was filed on May 15, 1981, but thereafter, the decree-holder voluntarily received a sum of Rs. 2500/- from the judgment debtor on May 27, 1981 and another sum of Rs 2500/- on June 24, 1981. The stand of the objector is that the decree was penal in the sense that in case of default the judgment-debtor was re