ORDER
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
1. The Petitioner Madan Lal borrowed money from a widow Smt. Premalata Devi resident of Badrinath Mat, Kotdwara district Pauri Garwhal, The amount was Rs. 4,270/-. The money was not returned to the widow consequently she had to take recourse to filing a Suit No. 9 of 1968 for recovery of this amount before the Court of Munsif, Lansdowne. The suit was decreed on 2 August, 1972. It appears from the record that no appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the trial court. Subsequently, the widow put in execution of the decree which she had obtained. This was numbered as Case No. 9 of 1984 before the Munsif, Lansdowne. Subsequently during the pendency of the execution case, 12 years after it was decreed, becoming wiser that a plea under the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 was available the petitioner took recourse to objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that a decree cannot be executed for reasons that the widow aforesaid was a money lender within the meaning of Section 26, Sub-section (4) of the Act aforesaid.
2. Learned Munsif rejected the objection on 4 September, 1984. Petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Pauri, which was allowed, in effect by an order of remand on 23 February, 1985 for the matter to be reconsidered in the light of certain directions given by the District Judge. Thereafter the execution case was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1985. Consequent upon remand the Munsif allowed the objection of the petitioner and directed that the execution be struck off and in effect consigned it to the record by maintaining that in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the Act aforesaid, the widow being a money lender the decree could Not be executed. The widow preferred a revision before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. This was numbered as revision No. 3 of 1985.
3. Learned District Judge set aside the order of the Munsif, in effect, holding that the finding of the Munsif that the widow was a money lender within the meaning of the Act was perverse. Perverse indeed it was. While the Munsif was examining the matter upon remand he set on record that he had given an opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence. There was an obligation upon the judgment-debtor petitioner to produce evidence to the effect that the widow was a money lender within the meaning of Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act aforesaid, and thus the decree in pursuance of Section 26, Sub-section (4) of the Act, aforesaid could not be executed. It is on record that the petitioner judgment-debtor did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. Thus the question of accepting objections of the petitioner judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the Code aforesaid did not arise.
4. The learned District Judge further places on record that the petitioner judgment debtor did not enter the witness box to fortify his contention that the widow was a money lender by profession and regard being had to the fact that not an iota of evidence was produced before the trial court, which was hearing the objections, the Munsif could not rest upon presumptions so as to frustrate the execution of the decree. At the Bar before the District Judge, the petitioner judgment-debtor had conceded that no evidence had been produced to fortify the objection under Section 47 of the Code. Thus, there is no illegality or error manifest or otherwise in the order of the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal dated 14th August, 1985 to warrant interference in the order which has been impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. This is a matter in which the judgment debtor has in fact harassed a widow who had lent money and is still awaiting its return. At the close of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that this Court may fix instalments so that the decree may be discharged. He took instructions from his client who was present in the Court but he has not received instructions to occasion an order on instalments.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court of the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal to be set on record of Civil Revision No. 3 of 1985 : Premlata Devi v. Madan Lal along with the record of the suit concerned and the execution case, so that the decree is put in motion forthwith without any further delay.
7. For the delay which has been caused
in the excution of the decree for the period
for which this petition has been pending a
sum of Rs. 250/- will be added to the decree
– as costs.
8. The writ petition is dismissed with costs as above.