RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. KOTTAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question arise for determination in both these Civil Revision Petitions, hence they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions availed agricultural loan from the respondent bank. Respondent bank in C. R. P. 64 of 1992 instituted A. R. C. No. 1951 of 1988 in which an award was passed in its favour. Consequent upon the lame respondent filed E. P. 59 of 1990 before the Munsiff's Court, Alathur. While so, the State Government by notification G.O. (MS) 68/90/ Coop. dated 21-11-1990 brought into force the Kerala Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Relief Scheme, 1990 under which agricultural loans granted up to 2-10-1989 were directed to be Waived by the banks and the amount reimbursed by the Government. Accordingly the revision petitioners in C. R. P. 64 of 1992 were served with an intimation by the bank to the effect that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with Interest of Rs. 485/- has been allotted to their loan account by the Government. It was also stated that only a total amount of Rs. 1,062.25 alone need be paid by the revision petitioners towards the decree debt. As the petitioners had by then already remitted Rs. 3,850/- in court, they filed E A. 404 of 1991 to reimburse the excess amount paid. They contended that after adjusting Rs. 1,06225 from Rs. 3,850/- deposited by them, the balance Rs. 2,787.75 was to be reimbursed to them. A consequential relief also was sought in the said E. A. to record full satisfaction of the decree after making the adjustment. Respondent did not file any objection to the E, A. Consequently the said E. A. was allowed and the decree holder was directed to return a sum of Rs. 2,787,75 to the judgment debtors - revision petitioners. Since the said amount of Rs. 2,787.75 was not paid, revision petitioners filed E. P. 134 of 1991 for realisation of the said amount. To this execution petition, respondent filed a counter statement contending that the respondent is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 425/- towards the cost of the execution petition. Lower court accepted the plea of the respondent holding that the revision petitioners are entitled to reimbursement only Rs. 2,362/- and dismissed the E. P. with the observation that the revision petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the said amount. Revision petitioners in C. R. P. 64 of 1992 challenges the correctness of the said order.

(3.) Against revision petitioners in C. R. P. No. 65 of 1992 also the respondent obtained an award in A C. R. No. 1953 of 1988 pursuant to which respondent filed E. P. 61 of 1990. In execution of the said award, the revision petitioners made a payment of Rs. 3,850/- pursuant to the said G. O. (MS) 68/90/Coop. dated 21-11-1990, the respondent bank served an intimation on the revision petitioners to the effect that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest of Rs. 440/- has been allotted to their loan account by the Government and that the balance amount, if any, alone need be paid by the revision petitioners. Since the revision petitioners had already remitted Rs. 3,850/-, they filed E. A. 405 of 1991 to reimburse the excess money paid. Revision petitioners contended that since no amount is now actually due towards the loan amount after adjustment of the amount allotted by the Government the amount of Rs. 3,850/- deposited by them in court has to be reimbursed. A consequential prayer was also made to the effect that full satisfaction be recorded in the execution petition filed by the respondent. Respondent did not file any counter. Therefore, the lower court allowed the petition, and directed the respondent to pay the said sum of Rs,3,850/- to the judgment debtors. Since the said amount was not paid by the respondent, revision petitioners filed E. P. 135 of 1991 to which the respondent filed a counter statement contending that they are entitled to additional amount of Rs.430/- towards the cost of execution and Rs 981.45 towards interest. By the impugned order the claim of the respondent was allowed, and the court below held that the revision petitioners are entitled to get reimbursement only Rs. 2,438.00. Petitioners in C. R. P. 65/1992 challenge the said order.