SUJATHA WEAVING MILLS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 81 of 1987 - a money decree, and respondents in E.P. No. 34 of 1992 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur. They filed E.A. No. 160 of 1993 for recording full satisfaction. That E. A. was dismissed by the Execution Court. This revision is directed against the said order.

(2.) According to the revision petitioners, the decree was for an amount of Rs. 98,644.08 towards which the judgment debtors have made deposits and as per the said deposits the decree stands satisfied. On the other hand, the decree holder maintained that balance amount is due after adjusting the said deposits. Judgment debtors maintained that the deposits made in the Execution Court has to be adjusted against the principal as per O.21 R.1 CPC and on such adjustment, no amount is due; whereas according to the decree holder since there was no notice as to the mode of adjustment, the decree holder is entitled to adjust the said payments first towards interest and then against the principal. Accordingly the decree holder has adjusted the part payments towards interest. If the said stand of the decree holder is correct, the revision petitioners are not entitled to have full satisfaction recorded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that after the amendment to O.21 R.1 CPC S.60 of the Contract Act has to be read subject to R.1 of O.21 and when so read, it could be seen that the deposit made by the revision petitioner have to be adjusted first against the principal. He relied on the decision in Punjab National Bank v. Prem Sagar (AIR 1988 Himachal Pradesh 33). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this court in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Mathunni Mathai ( 1993 (2) KLT 984 ) to contend that the amendment to O.21 R.1 CPC does not bring out such a consequence as is maintained by the revision petitioners.