Express consent for instalments under execution proceedings is required; silence by the decree-holder is not enough.

Under Order 20 Rule 11(2) CPC, instalments for payment of a decretal amount can be granted only with the decree-holder's express consent. Mere non-filing of objections by the decree-holder does not amount to implied consent, and a judgment-debtor cannot demand instalments on that basis. Authorities cited by the revisionist were treated as fact-specific or concerned with alteration of the decree, which was not shown or sought here. The refusal to fix instalments was therefore sustained in the absence of the decree-holder's express agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether instalments for payment of the decretal amount could be fixed in execution proceedings without the express consent of the decree-holder under Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Under Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the power to allow payment of the decretal amount in instalments depends upon the express consent of the decree-holder. Non-filing of objections by the decree-holder does not amount to implied consent, and the judgment-debtor cannot claim instalments on that basis. The cited authorities did not assist the revisionist because they turned on their own facts or on a different situation involving alteration of the decree, which was neither shown nor sought here.

Conclusion: Instalments could not be granted in the absence of the decree-holder's express consent, and the refusal to fix instalments was .

---