Bherulal vs Bank of Baroda - 1982 Supreme(MP) 614

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. L. Sethi.
For the Respondent: A. K. Chitle.

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 20, R. 17 (2) (as amended in M. P.) – Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 – S. 97 (1) – provision under O.20, R. 11 (2) – does not stand repealed by S. 97 (1) of amendment Act of 1976.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 20, R. 11 (2) – application of installments – consent of decree holder not necessary.
        Short Note
       1. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are as follows : The plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs.1,12,598.66 P. was decreed by the trial Court. Thereafter the applicants submitted an application under Order 20 Rule 11 (2) CPC praying that the defendants be allowed to pay the decretal amount in instalments of Rs. 10,000/ – per year. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that Order 20, Rule 11 (2) CPC as amended by the amending Act of 1976 provided that after the decree is passed the application for grant of instalments can be allowed only with the consent of the decree holder. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the defendants have submitted this revision.
       2. Held : The learned counsel for the applicants contended that by the M. P. Amendment to order 20, Rule 11 (2) CPC it is provided that the application can be considered by the trial Court after notice to the decree holder and that consent of the decree holder is not necessary. He further contended that this amendment does not stand repealed by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act No. 104 of 1976. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants bas force. A Division Bench of this Court in Devendra Kumar v. Jaidayal (1981 JLJ 681) held that in view of section 97(1) of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 the amendment made in Sub – rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order 20 CPC 1908 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not stand repealed. Thus the trial Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in dismissing the application of the defendants under Order 20 Rule 11(2) CPC on, the ground that the decree holder has not consented to the said application and the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 1981 JLJ 681 relied on.
       Revision allowed.