JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.10.2019 in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.100 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order 21.10.2019 in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.100 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur. 2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the award passed by the Lok Adalat held on 06.09.2018 the subsidy amount of Rs.2,68,750 that was to be paid to the Petitioner in this Revision Petition/Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court by the NABARD Bank was not at all considered. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Department, a copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with this Petition, the e-mail communication for the NABARD Subsidy and the Counter filed by the Petitioner herein as Respondent in the Execution Petition No.60 of 2019. Therefore, the order passed in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in PLC No.100 of 2018 against the Petitioner and in favour of the Bank of India, Thirumanur Branch, is to be set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder submitted that this Petition filed by the Judgment Debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not at all maintainable. If the Lok Adalat award is vitiated by fraud, he can file similar petition. Here, it is the case that the Lok Adalat was convened and the award arrived at in the presence of the Petitioner herein and he had voluntarily admitted to the award after deducting the subsidy amount only, the outstanding of the Petitioner was taken into consideration and award is passed based on the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience which also governs the Lok Adalat proceedings. Without the cooperation of the beneficiaries of the loan, Lok Adalat award cannot be passed. The statement of the loan was already furnished to the Petitioner from the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank. Without the cooperation of the beneficiaries of the loan, Lok Adalat award cannot be passed. The statement of the loan was already furnished to the Petitioner from the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank. The Petition had been filed suppressing the statement of account from the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank regarding the outstanding, regarding the credited amount of subsidy from the NABARD as well as Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. This Civil Revision Petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, this Petition has no merit and has to be dismissed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree holder invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter in Paragraph 3 and 4. The statement of accounts also furnished by the Respondent/Decree holder along with the counter. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree holder also invited the attention of this Court to the grounds of revision which reads as under: “C. The executing Judge ought to have considered that the subsidy of Rs.2,68,750/- in favour of the petitioner was not adjusted by the respondent when the fact remains that the petitioner commenced work under the Poultry Development Scheme only after respondent vide sanction letter 27.03.2015 addressed to the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Ariyalur and the Assistant Animal Husbandry Department dated 30.03.2015 vide Na.Ka.No.109/SPD/2014 exchanged communications and sanctioned subsidy of Rs.2,68,750/- hence the order is band in law. D. The executing Judge failed to consider that as per the Lok Adalat award dated 06.09.2018 in Case No.100 of 2018 the settlement was arrived at the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and it was on the understanding that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- excluding the amount of Rs.2,68,750/- being the amount of Subsidy and Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner before Lok Adalat but on the other hand the respondent herein had failed and neglected to give credit of the subsidy amount to the petitioner's loan account, which the petitioner is always entitled to and demanded the entire amount of Rs.3,65,000/- using the advantageous position of withholding my documents as Mortgage thus the order is bad in law. E. The executing Judge failed to consider that the respondent herien had filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.60of 2019 on the basis of the Lok Adalat award, taking advantage of the fact that there is no mention in the award aboug the subsidy amount had claimed the entire amount of Rs.3,65,000/- as per the award, ignoring the subsidy amount of Rs.2,68,750/- when the fact remains that the Assistant Animal Husbandry Department dated 30.03.2015 vide Na.Ka.No.109/SPD/2014 had already sanctioned the subsidy to the credit of the respondent.” He further submitted that if the grounds of revision is to be accepted by this Court, it amounts to permitting the Executing Court to travel beyond the decree. 6. On consideration of the rival submission and on perusal of the typed set where the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Department, the legal notice by the Petitioner herein, it is found that instead of payment of the outstanding Rs.8,25,192/- the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank had arrived at a settlement with the Petitioner for Rs.3,75,000/- only. The Petitioner as a beneficiary of the loan had accepted the settlement for Rs.3,75,000 instead of Rs.8,25,192. Therefore, the notice on behalf of the Petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition to the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank was objected by the Bank stating that if he does not settle the dues as on 06.12.2018, 12% interest will be imposed on the award. After the award, issuing legal notice on behalf of the Petitioner as though there was subsidy and the amount was not forthcoming, was disputed by the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank. Therefore, not only that on the date of award, the Petitioner herein, who is the beneficiary of the loan had paid Rs.10,000/-towards token discharge of the loan thereby making the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank officials to believe that the Petitioner is accepting the Lok Adalat award. While so, the conduct of the Petitioner in filing a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India disputing the award is unacceptable in the principles of promissory estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. The amount of Rs.8,25,192/- is the outstanding but that Respondent/Decree Holder Bank had reduced it to Rs.3,75,000/- considering the amount of subsidy offered by the Animal Husbandry Department and NABARD Bank. The amount of Rs.8,25,192/- is the outstanding but that Respondent/Decree Holder Bank had reduced it to Rs.3,75,000/- considering the amount of subsidy offered by the Animal Husbandry Department and NABARD Bank. Under those circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank, this Civil Revision Petition is filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings, is found justified and acceptable. At the stage of admission itself, this Court had imposed a condition to the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the credit of E.P.No.60 of 2019 in PLC No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. Accordingly, the Petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank disputing the award and seeking to set aside the award. There is no averment regarding fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court, is rejected and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the Executing Court is within its power to proceed with the attachment of the properties of the Petitioner as already ordered by the Executing Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.