Judgement ORDER :- In a decree for money obtained by her, revision-petitioner filed an E.P. seeking arrest of the respondent/Judgment Debtor. Respondent filed his counter contending that except the salary being received by him, he has no other source of income and so he cannot be arrested. In support of her case, revision-petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and the respondent examined himself as R.W. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. The executing Court, after considering the evidence on record, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month on or before 3rd of every succeeding month and directed his arrest in the event of the respondent's failure to pay the instalments. Hence, this revision by the decree holder. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for revision-petitioner is that since executing Court has no power to grant instalments, the order under revision is unsustainable. 3. Though served respondent did not put in his appearance. 4. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for revision-petitioner, because it is well known that executing Court has to execute the decree as it is, and cannot convert a decree into an instalment decree. If the respondent wanted to pay the decretal amount in instalments, he ought to have approached the Court on the original side seeking an instalment decree. If the judgment-debtor fails to do so the executing Court has to execute the decree as it is but cannot grant instalments in a petition for execution of the money decree. 5. In a petition for arrest of the judgment-debtor, the executing Court has to consider the evidence on record and find out whether the judgment-debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and is avoiding to pay the amount and pass appropriate orders, but cannot convert the decree into an instalment decree and so, the order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted to the executing Court for considering the evidence on record and pass appropriate orders in the E.P. No costs.