B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned order, the trial Court has permitted the decretal debt to be discharged in instalments of Rs. 80,000. 00 per year. The direction is that upon non-payment of two consecutive instalments, the decretal amount shall become executable at once. ( 2 ) THE decree was passed as far back as in February, 1984 and the application for grant of instalments for payment of the decretal amount in terms of Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure was made on 14-9-1987. By a separate order (separate matter in Civil Revision No. 243 of 1989) the delay in filing that application was condoned. The application was opposed by the applicants. They stated that the non-applicant and its partners are possessed of sufficient means - assets as also income - to discharge the decretal sum in lump sum. No such prayer was made in the written statement. The non-applicant adduced some evidence and the Court allowed that application. The revision is directed against that order permitting payment by instalments. ( 3 ) AT the outset and before entering into merit, it may be stated that that by a separate order passed today in Civil Revision No. 243 of 1989, 1 have set aside the order of the executing Court whereby the delay in making the application for grant of instalments was condoned. I have dismissed that application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That being so, on that count alone, this revision must be allowed and the application for permission to pay the decretal amount by instalments has to be dismissed. However, I proceed to examine this revision also on its merits. ( 4 ) I may state that the instalment fixed at Rs. 80,000. 00 per year is only just sufficient to satisfy the interest on the decretal amount accruing due per year. Approximately, the interest would be a little more than Rs. 72,000. 00 per year. If, therefore, the order in question is allowed to stand, it may well be impracticable to see the decretal amount being paid. The decree is for Rs. 6,37,000/- and odd over which interest has accrued during the pendency of suit. It carries future interest at nine per cent per annum. In view of this huge decretal amount, permission to discharge the decretal debt by instalments of Rs. 80,000. The decree is for Rs. 6,37,000/- and odd over which interest has accrued during the pendency of suit. It carries future interest at nine per cent per annum. In view of this huge decretal amount, permission to discharge the decretal debt by instalments of Rs. 80,000. 00/- per year appears to be quite unconscionable and inequitable. It is no doubt true that the amount of instalments and the period for their payment is a matter of the discretion of the Court. It is, however, equally true that such discretion must be exercised within bounds. Care should be taken to see that the equities are so settled that neither party is denied justice. In the present case, if the instalments are permitted as directed by the executing Court, it is manifest that it will mean a denial of plaintiff-decree holder's right to realise the fruits of the decree. Such an order cannot be allowed to stand and must be set aside. ( 5 ) THE applicant has stated that the non-applicants have assets of considerable value to enable it to pay the amount under the decree. The non-applicants' witnesses were cross-examined in that direction. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Court observes that the non-applicants have a godown which has been given on a rent of Rs. 30,000. 00/- per month. This by itself indicates that not only the non-applicant has sufficient income but also gives an indication of the value of the property which yields an income of Rs. 30,000. 00/- per month. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the Court has discussed the income of each partner. That has been done only on the basis of income-tax return and not on the basis of accounts. The applicant states that the non-applicants have other income and assets but they could not demonstrate that as the opportunity for that purpose was denied. Even if one were to ignore the suggestion made by the applicant, the findings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, in my opinion, are sufficient to show that the non-applicants have sufficient income and are not persons who cannot discharge the decretal debt in a lump sum. This apart, the non-applicant's conduct during the pendency of the litigation is also not such as may indicate any promptness or sincere desire to pay the decretal amount. This apart, the non-applicant's conduct during the pendency of the litigation is also not such as may indicate any promptness or sincere desire to pay the decretal amount. During the pendency of the application before the executing Court for about two years, the non-applicants deposited only Rs. 25,000. 00. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the executing Court is not even based on facts found by the Court itself. The non-applicant's conduct throughout the litigation has not been taken into account at all. The instalments fixed virtually deny the applicant the fruits of the decree. The equities have not been balanced. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the non-applicants have not made out a case for granting them the facility of payment of decretal amount by instalments. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the non-applicants under Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/ -. Revision allowed. .