RATNAVELSWAMY Vs. BANK OF THANJAVUR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the respective suits are the petitioners in these revision petitions. C.R.P. 2759 of 1984 arises out of judgment and decree in O.S. 117 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court of Manamadurai, while C.R.P. 2760 of 1984 to 2 762 of 1984 arise out of the decrees in O.S. 385 of 1982, O.S. 118 of 1982, and O.S. 272 of 1982, on the file of the said Court. The respondent is the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. The respondent herein filed the above suits for recovery of money from the petitioners-defendants in the respective suits due on a promissory note executed by each of the defendants in favour of the respondent - plaintiff with interest at 15 per cent per annum. So far as the suits O.S. 1/7 of 1982 and 385 of 1982 are concerned, the first defendant in the said suits submitted to a decree by filing a memo and the second defendant therein was set ex parte. In respect of the other two suits, viz., O.S. 118. of 1982 and 272 of 1982, the defendants were set ex parte and ex parte decrees were passed. In all the four cases, the Court while drafting the decree, has awarded future interest from the date of decree also at the rate of 15 per cent till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - defendants filed applications under Ss.151 and 152, C.P.C., praying for amendment of the decrees to the effect that the interest payable after the decree is only 6 per cent per annum, i.e., from the date of decree till realisation, on the ground that the loan was obtained in connection with the purchase of motor and pump set for agricultural purposes and that there is no commercial transaction between the respondent - Bank and the petitioners and by virtue of S.34, C.P.C., only 6 per cent interest on the principal amount has to be awarded and in the instant case, the award of interest at the contract rate of 15 per cent is illegal and is contrary to the provisions of S.34, C.P.C. Hence, the decrees have to be amended suitably.

(2.) The said applications were resisted by the respondent on the ground that since the petitioners have consented to a decree in two suits and the petitioners in the other two suits were set ex parte, it is not open to them to challenge the decree by filing these applications and as such, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Court below upheld the contention of the respondent and dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, these revisions have been filed by the defendants in the above suits.