THANGAVEL PADAYACHI DIED Vs. J RAMU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Legal Representatives of the judgment-debtor in the appeal A. S. No. 437 of 1979, have come forward with this application for amendment of the decree in O. S. No. 345 of 1973 of Sub Court , Ariyalur, contending as follows: THE suit filed by the respondent against Thangavel padayachi, was decreed. But the respondent filed the appeal in respect of certain amounts disallowed by the trial court. THE said appeal was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent took out an execution in e. P. No. 2 of 1981 for realising a sum of Rs. 58,882 against the decree passed for a sum of Rs. 31,620 with proportionate costs. In the judgment, the rest of the claim of the plaintiff has been dismissed with costs. THE office, by mistake, has drafted the decree for a higher sum. Hence the application for amendment of the decree.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a counter contending briefly as follows: THE respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,309 towards the principal and interest due under various promissory notes executed by Thangavel Padayachi. THE trial court held that the defendant had paid interest upto 17. 8. 1972 and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim interest for the promissory notes till 17. 8. 1972 and disallowed a portion of the interest claimed and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 31,620 with proportionate costs and interest due from 17. 8. 1972. THE appeal preferred by the deceased defendant was dismissed. THE father of the respondent who is the plaintiff, has filed e. P. No. 2 of 1981 for recovering the decree amount. THE present contention is one of the various untenable contentions raised by him to the effect that the decree-holder is not entitled to future interest. THE same is liable to be rejected since the courts are vested with power to award interest under Sec. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.