SEN GUPTA ( 1 ) THIS is an application for variation and/or modification of my order dated 14th March, 2005. The entire judgment and order is not sought to be modified, only the portion thereof which speaks of payment of admitted amount by instalment is sought to be modified. ( 2 ) MR. A. K. Chatterjee, learned Senior advocate appearing in support of the application, submits that his client is in tremendous hardship to make any arrangement whatsoever for squaring off the dues in terms of my aforesaid order. The initial payment of 50% of admitted dues has not been paid fully within the time. Only a sum of Rs. 10 lacs out of the 50% amount has been paid, not to speak of payment of instalment of the balance 50% with interest. He contends that enough power has been given to the Court under Section 148 of the Code of civil Procedure to enlarge the time for making payment. In order to show bona fide his client has already paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and further reasonable time should be given to liquidate the entire amount. The grounds for which modification is asked for stated in paragraph 5 are that due to global economic recession the petitioner had very little job in the field of consulting engineering services for the last 4 or 5 years and as such, the petitioner had to face severe cash crunch. ( 3 ) MR. A. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate while opposing the application, submits factually that there has been no ground for extending sympathy to this defaulting person. This admitted amount has fallen due on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. The aforesaid order of payment should have been made. By not granting instalment the petitioner has taken fullest advantage of the sympathy extended by the Court and further leniency should not be shown to them. He submits further that the story made out in paragraph 5 has no relevance, rather the petitioner has sufficient means to pay off the debts but they will not do so taking advantage of the indulgence granted by the Court. In the affidavit he has shown materials wherefrom it appears that the petitioner is diverting the fund for other purpose instead of paying the aforesaid admitted amount. In the affidavit he has shown materials wherefrom it appears that the petitioner is diverting the fund for other purpose instead of paying the aforesaid admitted amount. So, the conduct of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency or indulgence any more, as after expiry of the time granted by the Court the petitioner has filed this application. He further contends that the court has no jurisdictional power to grant any instalment further without the consent of the respondent namely the plaintiff and this position of the law will appear from order 20, Rule 11, sub-rule (2 ). The aforesaid provision of law is set out hereunder :"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. " ( 4 ) MR. AJoy Krishna Chatterjee, Senior advocate submits that Order 20, sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 has no manner of application on the facts and circumstances of this case. This provision will be applicable in the case only when any instalment asked for after the decree is passed, then consent of the decree-holder is necessary. ( 5 ) I have examined the scope of Order 20, Rule 11. sub-rules (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that context I have also gone through the judgment of the bombay High Court reported in AIR 1984 bombay 314 cited by Mr. Mitra. I think there is some substance in the argument of Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee so far the provision of law is concerned. If the order passed by me is taken to be a decree which can be done under the law, then I granted instalment of my own and upon hearing the parties. This order is passed under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11, sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the order passed by me is taken to be a decree which can be done under the law, then I granted instalment of my own and upon hearing the parties. This order is passed under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11, sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have passed order granting suitable instalment and, according to me, the Court has also power to reschedule and/or postpone the payment of instalment and for this purpose no consent is required as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. Court has ample power to grant instalment at the time of passing of the decree. If the Court does not grant any instalment while passing a decree and subsequently if the judgment-debtor prays for payment of instalment of decretal dues, then, in that case, consent of the decree-holder as contemplated under sub-rule (2)of Rule 11 is mandatory. ( 6 ) THE decision of the Bombay High court, in my view, was not rendered on the aforesaid subject. It was rendered in case of a mortgage suit which deals with two types of decrees - preliminary and final. ( 7 ) I think this Court has ample power to extend the time or to re-schedule the payment of instalment by virtue of Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure. The Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1983 SC 428 has specifically made it clear particularly in paragraph 6 of the judgment. In that judgment it had been abundantly ruled that even without consent of the parties a consent order can be modified to the extent of granting extension of time to make payment. The Bombay high Court judgment, though has taken note of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, however, has not discussed in detail nor applied the principle laid down therein. As such, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mitra on the question of law that. I have no jurisdiction without consent to grant extension of time or to re-schedule payment of instalment. ( 8 ) IT is true that the Court has power but then the Court cannot do it as a matter of course or on a mere asking. The Court has to examine each and every facts and circumstances of this case. 1 have gone through the petition and the purported grounds made out therein. ( 8 ) IT is true that the Court has power but then the Court cannot do it as a matter of course or on a mere asking. The Court has to examine each and every facts and circumstances of this case. 1 have gone through the petition and the purported grounds made out therein. I find that no ground has been made out to ask for the court's indulgence for making further extension of time. The so-called financial hardship is not believable as evident from affidavit-in-opposition. The Court has granted enough time. I do not find any reason for grant of any relief or to re-schedule the payment. Therefore, the application is dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the event the payment is not made mr. Mitra's client would be at liberty to take steps in terms of my earlier order. ( 10 ) THERE would be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) ALL parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Petition dismissed.