JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner- decree holders against the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Sojat in Execution Case No. 13/2007, Mishrilal v. Suja Ram , whereby the learned executing Court allowed the application filed by the respondent Suja Ram under Order 21 Rules 85 and 86 C.P.C. and order dated 18.8.2009 whereby the learned executing Court allowed the application under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Suresh Kumbhat on behalf of Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar submitted that the respondent Suja Ram has paid the entire amount of Rs. 3,83,000/- in total satisfaction of the decretals amount and has not even claimed installments as indicated in the previous order dated 8.4.2013 which is quoted below and therefore, the present writ petitions may be dismissed: "Both the learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective written submissions in terms of previous order dated 1.4.2013. As per petitioner (Decree-holder), Mishri Lal, without prejudice his contentions, the principal decreetal amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- with up to date interest upto 8.4.2013 at 18% interest has been computed at Rs. 3,80,197/-. Learned counsel for the respondent (judgment-debtor), Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar submits that the respondent, Surja Ram is a poor agriculturist, but to save his agricultural land and residential house, he will pay the decretal sum with interest in installments and towards that he would pay 50% of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,80,197/- i.e. Rs. 1,90,000/- on or before 4.5.2013 and further the remaining 50% amount in monthly installments commencing form the month of May, 2013 in six equal monthly installments. The petitioner may accordingly deposit the said amount before the next date positively. The interest is computed up to 8.4.2013 but further interest will be added at the same rate till the complete payment is made. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be at liberty to compute the remaining interest and produce revised chart on the next date, which the learned counsel for the respondent will be free to verify. Put up on 6.5.2013 along with connected matters with compliance report." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H.R. Soni does not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondents, however, he submitted that a reasonable amount towards the litigation expenses may also be awarded against the respondents-judgment debtors. 4. Put up on 6.5.2013 along with connected matters with compliance report." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H.R. Soni does not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondents, however, he submitted that a reasonable amount towards the litigation expenses may also be awarded against the respondents-judgment debtors. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. In view of the fact that the respondent Suja Ram has paid the entire decreetal amount with interest as directed in the letter and spirit of mutual settlement of dispute between the parties, further award for litigation expenses is not considered appropriate. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. H.R. Soni ultimately agrees to it. 7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed with the total satisfaction of the decree of the learned trial Court. The land in question will accordingly vest with the respondents free from the effect of present dispute and litigation. No or r as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned trial Court below forthwith.Petition Dismissed. *******