Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab National Bank vs Ram Darshan Singh And Ors. on 2 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR122
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Suit of the petitioner-Bank was decreed on September 13, 1990 for recovery of Rs. 67,120/- with interest at the rate of 14 1/2% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of the suit till its realisation. Decretal amount could be recovered by sale of mortgaged properties, i.e., land measuring 88 kanals and the tractor as detailed in the heading of the plaint.
2. In the execution taken out by the Bank, judgment debtor filed an objection petition contending that the decree was regarding the agricultural loan and the trial Court has wrongly granted interest at the contractual rate in violation of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bank, however, in reply took the stand that the rate of interest was rightly granted by the Court decreeing the suit. The objection raised found favour with the executing Court and it was held that the decree holder is entitled to recover future interest at the rale of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation. Aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court could not go into the question of grant of interest and vary the rate of interest granted by the Court while decreeing the suit. In other words, the contention is that it is only the Court which granted the decree or the Appellate/Revisional Court which can change the rate of the interest and the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to do so. It was bound to execute the decree as it is. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the interest is to be calculated in terms of Order 34 Rule 11. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed on Punjab National Bank v. Rajinder Kumar, (1991-1) 99 P.L.R. 340, Chahan Singh v. Punjab National Bank, (1992-1)101 P.L.R. 647 and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2177.
4. The case of the judgment debtor, respondents on the other hand is that the decree is only a money decree and the Court cannot grant interest over and above the rate of 6% per annum as envisaged by Section 34 of the Code. Their further case is that interest on interest cannot be granted.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 67,120/- by sale of the mortgaged property. A perusal of the decree sheet shows that the properties were under mortgage with the plaintiff-Bank vide registered mortgage deed dated February 14, 1979. The decree specifically stated that the amount could be recovered by sale of mortgaged properly. This is, thus, a decree under Order 34 and the provisions of Rule 11 of Order 34 would apply and not the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the view which has been taken in Chanan Singh's case (Supra). Thus, the Court granting the decree rightly determined the principal amount and the rate of interest payable thereon, which was the agreed rate between the parties. Reference to para 3 of the plaint, made by learned counsel for the respondents, dues not go to show that it was a simple loan and not based on mortgage.
6. The amount found due by the Court has to be treated as the principal amount and the Court has, in my view, rightly granted interest thereon, This is what precisely was held in Jagdamba Rice Mills and Ors. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (1989-1) 95 F.L.R. 460. Sitting singly, I am bound by the view taken by this Court and the learned counsel for the respondents could draw no support from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Union Bank of India, Bombay v. Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay, 1992 I.S.J (Banking)555.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition suceeds and the order under revision is set aside and the objections arc dismissed. No costs.