Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010130762025 2025:GAU-AS:8290 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/223/2025 RAJU KALITA S/O LATE JADAV CH. KALITA @ DOBANI, R/O KHUTIKATIA KOLONGPAR ROAD, NEAR BHADRAM RAJKHOWA L.P. SCHOOL, WARD NO. 19, P.O.- HAIBARGAON, P.S.- NAGAON, DISST- NAGAON (ASSAM) VERSUS CHANDRA DEV GOSWAMI S/O LATE SINGHASON GOSWAMI, R/O LAKHINAGAR, MOUZA- KASAMARI, P.S.- NAGAON, DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM) Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S BORA, MR. P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, in T. Ex. No. 13/2024. Page No.# 2/3 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon has dismissed the petition No. 106(A)/2025, filed by the petitioner for allowing him to deposit the decretal amount in instalments. 4. Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the judgment debtor in Title Suit No. 48/2018, and the said title suit was decreed by the learned Court allowing the plaintiff/respondent herein to recover a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the present petitioner with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. Ms. Bora also submits that the petitioner is a driver by profession and he is a drug addict and often, he resides in rehabilitation centre for his recovery, besides he has to maintain his family, and as such, he is not in a position to make payment of the decretal amount i.e. Rs. 6,61,892/- in one go, and therefore, it is contended that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the aforesaid amount in instalments. 5. Having heard the submission of Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 05.05.2025. 6. It appears that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no mention about part payment of the decretal amount in the decree so passed in Title Suit No. 48/2018. 9. But, it appears that there is provision in the CPC i.e. Order 20 Rule 11, which provides that: “11. Decree may direct payment by instalments- Page No.# 3/3 (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may for any sufficient reason incorporate in the decree after hearing such of the parties who had appeared personally or by pleader at the last hearing, before judgment, an order that] payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments, with or without interest, notwithstanding anything contained in the contract under which the money is payable. (2) Order, after decree, for payment by instalments— After the passing of any such decree the Court may, on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments on such terms as to the payment of interest, the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, or the taking of security from him, or otherwise, as it thinks fit.” 10. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 05.05.2025, it appears that the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order 20 CPC, eschewed consideration of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 05.05.2025, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon by filing a fresh petition on the next date fixed, and on such petition being filed, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon shall consider the same in the light of the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order 20 CPC. 12. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant