2013 PLP 468 (CLC)

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

Through this judgment I intend to dispose of Civil Revision No.371 of 2012 also as both the Civil Revisions are on the same question of law and facts between the same parties.

2. Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 20-1-2012 of learned Additional District Judge-V, Nowshera whereby appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 17-9-2011 passed by learned Civil Judge-II, Nowshera for recovery of the decretal amount in shape of cash payment was turned down, has been dismissed.

3. Precise background of the present civil revision is that petitioner/decree-holder brought a suit against the present respondents/ judgment-debtors for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of assessment amount etc. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit in his favour, whereupon the present petitioner/decree-holder brought an execution petition for satisfaction of the said decree. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner/decree-holder requested for payment/refund of the decretal amount, in cash, from the judgment-debtors/respondents. The said plea was refused by the learned trial court/executing court vide its order dated 17-9-2011. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner/decree-holder filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-2012, hence this revision petition. Arguments of both the learned counsel heard at length and record perused.

4. Admittedly, the decree is in favour of the petitioner, which is to be executed in its latter and spirits. The decretal amount was deposited by the petitioner/decree-holder, in cash with the respondents/judgment-debtor.

5. Learned counsel for the judgment-debtor/respondents was time and again asked to produce any law, Rules or Regulations for not paying the decretal amount, in cash and adjusting the same in the monthly bills of the consumer/petitioner/decree-holder but he failed to produce the same nor was able to refer to any such Law/Rules etc.

6. It is observed that the judgment-debtors/respondents never wait for a single day, beyond due date of utility bills, either disconnect the electricity or recover the utility bills with surcharge, therefore, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor was asked to adjust the decretal amount in the running monthly bills with interest, to which he showed his inability.

7. Since there is no law/rules or reasons/justification, whatsoever, with the judgment-debtors to retain the money deposited in their account, in cash, for an indefinite period, therefore, not authorized to retain the same. Both the learned lower courts had not given any justified reason for not allowing the decretal amount to the decree-holder, in cash, hence both the judgments are set aside, civil revision is allowed and the judgment-debtor/respondents are directed to release the decretal amount to the decree-holder, within seven days of this judgment, failing which they will be liable to pay mark-up, per day, on the unpaid decretal amount. Order accordingly. MWA/415/P Petition allowed.