CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. VIKRAM SINGH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Learned Executing Court rejecting an application filed under section 151 of CPC by the petitioner Bank, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the judgment-debtor Bank.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 plaintiff Vikram Singh Rana had filed the suit in question claiming that he be declared as owner of truck bearing No. MP 20/C 9412 and the amount deposited after auction of the truck be paid to him. The suit has been decreed and the decree is put to execution in the proceeding. In the said proceeding an application was filed by the petitioner purported to be under section 151 of CPC inter alia contending that the truck in question was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,600/- balance amount of Rs. 1,98,400/- was directed to be deposited in FDR for one year by order dated 12.3.1997. It was the case of the Bank when the FDR was deposited for one year and after one year the FDR matured an amount of Rs. 2,18,996/- was payable on the FDR, it was stated that after the FDR had matured at the time of execution of decree the entire amount of Rs. 2,18,996/- has been deposited by the Bank in the Executing Court, this amount has been paid to the plaintiff, however there is no direction to pay any interest in the final judgment and decree passed. It was stated by the Bank that the plaintiff is only entitled to the amount of auction i.e., 1,98,400/- and extra amount of interest of Rs. 2,596/- paid is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. Inter alia contending that the decree is only to pay amount of auction and not interest, application was filed which has been rejected by the learned Court ad learned Court has further directed that interest on the amount of Rs. 1,98,400/- till payment be paid by the Bank. It is the case of the Bank that in doing so learned Executing Court had travelled beyond the judgment and decree. Placing reliance to following judgments in the case of State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma [1998 (1) JLJ 403] State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma [AIR 1990 SC 2177] and Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar [AIR 2002 SC 808] Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, argues that an executing Court cannot travelling beyond the judgment and decree, it was emphasized by him that judgment and decree passed in the present case direction is only to pay the amount received on auction there being no direction to pay any interest on this amount. It is argued by Shri Dwivedi that direction given to the Bank to deposit interest on the amount of Rs. 1,98,400/- for the entire period, even after the period of one year i.e., after the FDR had matured is illegal and he therefore, seeks interference in the matter in this proceeding.

(3.) I have heared learned counsel for parties at length, on going through the records, it is clear that even though in the judgment and decree passed there is no specific direction for payment of interest but the order dated 12.3.1997 clearly indicates that the amount of Rs. 1,98,400/- was directed to be deposited in a FDR for a period of one year, in this order it is clearly mentioned that after the suit is decided on merit the concerned party may get interest on the amount and therefore, the amount was directed to keep in FDR and defendant No. 5 petitioner Bank was directed to keep the amount in FDR and submit the photocopy of the FDR receipt, Bank in question kept the amount in FDR for a period of one year and after one year had lapsed it did deposit the amount with the Court, nor did the Bank take any action for renewing FDR on the contrary it kept silent and utilized the money. It is under these circumstances that the learned Court found that the amount was not deposited with the Court within the stipulated period nor the FDR renewed as the amount was utilized by the Bank the Court ordered that the interest be also paid to be concerned party. Discretion exercised by the learned Court below in directing for payment of interest due is a reasonable order and it cannot be said that in doing so executing Court has travelled beyond the decree, the interlocutory order dated 12.3.1997 passed by the Court, the purpose for passing the aforesaid order and the direction in the aforesaid order to the effect that interest has to be given to the parties in whose favour the decree is passed are all relevant and the direction contained in the order dated 12.3.1997 has to be read along with the judgment and decree passed. Once the Bank was made custodian of the amount received in auction, Bank was holding the amount in the FDR as a trustee for the Court, that being so it was incumbent upon the Bank to inform the Court after the period of one year as to what is to be done with the FDR. Bank having utilized the amount or having retained it with them was liable to pay interest on the said amount. Under such circumstances I see no reason to interfere with directives issued by the learned executing Court.