Ex. Petition No. 8 of 2003

25.4.2018 Present: Mr.Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Decree Holder. Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate wity Mr.Deven Khanna, Advocate, for the judgment debtors.

OMP No. 47 of 2018

This application has been filed for staying operation of interim order dated 10.1.2018, on the ground that calculations placed on record by the decree holder are not correct, rather in violation of direction issued by this Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2016.

Vide order dated 10.1.2018, this Court had directed the judgment debtor to deposit 25,00,000/- well before next date of hearing, only on request made on behalf of judgment debtor to grant time to make part payment of 25,00,000/- against the decreetal amount. It was requested that judgment debtor be granted time to make the said part payment by month of March, 2018 and in this background, judgment debtor was directed to deposit `25,00,000/- before next date of hearing i.e. 15th March, 2018.

There is no interim order to make part payment by the judgment debtor, however, the part payment were being accepted on the request of judgment debtor, keeping in view difficulty of judgment debtor to make the payment of entire

decreetal amount and at that time no dispute with regard to wrong calculation of amount had been raised by the judgment debtor.

In rejoinder to this application, judgment debtor has raised the issue of filing false affidavit by officer of decree holder and has also mentioned filing of applications against those persons to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. All these issues are not relevant with the prayer made in the application. So far as the application is concerned, it is only for staying the interim order dated 10.1.2018, as explained above, the time granted by directing the judgment debtor to deposit 25,00,000/- well before next date of hearing was in response to the prayer of judgment debtor seeking time to make part payment of 25,00,000/- against the decreetal amount.

Therefore, prayer for staying order dated 10.1.2018 is misconceived, as the judgment debtor has to satisfy the execution petition in its totality and deposit of `25,00,000/- is also not going to absolve the judgment debtor from liability to pay the amount, if any, yet to be paid to the decree holder. Therefore, this application is dismissed with the observation that all issues raised in the rejoinder may be raised in appropriate application/proceedings, if permissible, under law at this stage. The application stands disposed of.

OMP No. 146 of 2018

This application has been filed for placing on record statements of account D-1 and D-2, reflecting the outstanding amount due in terms of order dated 3.5.2016 passed by this Court. Applicant/decree holder has also placed on record another statement of account D-2, by applying the general principle i.e. adjustment of repayment firstly against the interest amount and thereafter against the principal amount.

As of now, there is specific order dated 3.5.2016 passed by this Court, which is in force and therefore, statement of account prepared after applying general principle is not relevant.

These statements are taken on record. Learned counsel for judgment debtor has raised objection with respect to statement of account D-1 also on the ground that 50,00,000/- was deposited by the judgment debtor on 3rd November, 2014, whereas in the statement of account D-1, this amount has shown to be received on 28.1.2015 and therefore, interest on 50,00,000/- for 87 days has been wrongly charged. The similar statement of account was filed by decree holder earlier also, which was in the knowledge of judgment debtor. Judgment debtor is at liberty to file on record calculations which are correct according to him. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.

OMP No. 189 of 2016

Reply stands filed on 16th May, 20178. List for consideration on 26th May, 2018.

OMP No. 150 of 2018

Reply, as prayed for be filed within two weeks and rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter.

Ex. Petition No. 8 of 2013

List on 26^th May, 2018. In the meanwhile, judgment debtor is at liberty to file calculations which are correct according to him, if desired so.

25^th April 2018

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.