HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

       This is an appeal under section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act filed at the instance of the complainant/decree holder/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) in the EA/100/2016.

       A complaint case being CC/402/2015 filed before Ld. DCDRF, South 24-Parganas at Baruipur was allowed on contest against the OPs no. 1 and 2 and exparte against the OP no. 3 with cost of 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). All the OPs were directed jointly and severally to refund the entire consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the case till its realization, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) within 30 days from the date of the order and all such payments were to be made within a month. From the order impugned dated 15-09-2017 passed by Ld. DCDRF, South 24-Parganas at Baruipur, it appears that the OP no. 2 of the said complaint case was produced from Correctional Home, a bail petition was filed on his behalf praying for his bail stating that he was ready to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in cash. In the order impugned Ld. Trial Forum held the following:- “Be that as it may, when this Forum is successfully progressing this case by issuing W.A. and hereby he was arrested and produced on 12.9.2017 and he was directed to be produced today knowing the fact that this case is pending today and when Jdr. undertakes to deposit month by month by installments, which will not be less than 50,000/- and maybe more than that and DHr. is ready to accept the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the JDr. may find an interim bail on Petitioner Bond of Rs. 1,000/-  subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/-  to the Ld. Advocate of the DHr. in default to J.C. and to produce on 29.9.2017 and if on bail JDr. is directed to appear on 16.10.2017 for payment of remaining amount in installment in light of the observation made in above”.

       Now the point for consideration left before us in this appeal is that whether Ld. Forum concerned as executing court has any power to realize the decretal amount by installments when the original decree is silent on that point. It is the cardinal principles of law that the court executing a decree has no power to amend or alter the decree in its own fashion and it must take the same as it stands. Ld. Counsel appearing for the decree holder in course of argument relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vemula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Thumepalli Venkateswarlu on, reported in  2002 (1) ALD 169, where the Hon’ble Court held that the executing court has no power to grant installments under the provisions of the code of civil procedure. Since the Consumer Protection Act is partially based on the principles prescribed by the code of civil procedure, we are of the view that Ld. Executing Court did not have any power to grant installments in realizing the decretal amount, cost etc by installments when the decree holder had not consented over it at the initial stage of passing the decree. Hence taking into consideration the facts of the case we modify the order impugned to the effect that the court executing the decree must take the spirit of direction given against the judgment debtor in CC/402/2015 and thereby we direct the judgment debtor to pay the entire decretal amount including costs etc. on the next date fixed by the executing court within one month from the date of the order or the next date fixed by the Ld. Executing Court whichever is later. This appeal is thus disposed of exparte.