JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - A father's debt has recoiled on the widow and their progencies. A claim by the contesting respondents, as plaintiffs in a suit, succeeded. The decree was but in execution. The family house became the subject matter of attachment to satisfy the decree. The technicality of the law does not save the petitioners, otherwise judgment debtors, and if allowed to have its course, then the family home would be sold to satisfy the decree. 2. The petitioners have virtually came to this Court with a mercy petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners had made submission at the bar that his clients treat the decree as a debt of honour which must be honoured and that the family is bound to discharge the debt. An assurance has been given that if an indulgence is granted by this Court, then by the middle of March, 1988, the petitioners would pay to the decree - holders a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - . Thereafter, a balance of about Rs. 10,000/ - would remain. Even this balance will be paid at the rate of Rs. 600/ - per month beginning first March 1988. The proposition was put to learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Satya Prakash. He has accepted the proposition. The indulgence sought by the petitioner has been set in an affidavit filed today by Ram Babu, son of the late Ganesh Prasad, the person who took the debt. As between parties there is accommodation, let it be so. 3. As agreed between parties, the petitioners and or the respondent No. 5, will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand only) on or before 31 March, 1988. Thereafter the aforesaid persons shall deposit before the execution Court during the first week of every month a sum of Rs. 600/ - (Rupees six hundred only). This monthly deposit shall continue till the decree is satisfied. 4. There is no issue, thus, left between the parties so that the Court may interfere in execution. The execution proceedings will now remain stalled permitting the petitioners and the respondents No. 5 to keep to the schedule set by this Court. If the contesting respondents find that the schedule is not being ad heard to, they have been given the liberty by this Court lo move an application in this writ petition and seek appropriate orders. 5. The execution proceedings will now remain stalled permitting the petitioners and the respondents No. 5 to keep to the schedule set by this Court. If the contesting respondents find that the schedule is not being ad heard to, they have been given the liberty by this Court lo move an application in this writ petition and seek appropriate orders. 5. This petition is decided and consigned to the record without any order on