STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SRIDHAR PRASAD KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, who by the impugned Judgment though decreed the suit but refused to grant interest pendente lite and future and also permitted the Defendant to pay the amount by way of half -yearly instalments at the rate of Rs. 1000/ -. The Plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and took Rs. 6000/ - on executing a Demand promissory Note on 7 -4 -1970. The Defendant acknowledged his liability by executing revival letters on 4 -4 -1973 and 4 -9 -1973 in favour of the Plaintiff -Bank, but on his failure to pay the amount in spite of the notice being issued, the Plaintiff filed the suit. The Defendant in his written statement admitted the fact of incurring the loan but challenged only the interest assessed against him to be illegal and excessive. He also stated that in the event of a decree he may be permitted to pay the same in quarterly instalments. One these pleadings, five issues were framed and on the basis of Ext. 1 the Demand Promissory Note it was held that the said Promissory. Note is genuine and for consideration and he has taken the sum of Rs. 6000/ - as contained in the Promissory Note. With regard to revival letters, Exts. 2 and 2/a, the learned Subordinate Judge found them to be genuine and valid documents. So far as the rate of interest claimed as well as the prayer for payment of decretal dues on instalments concerned, the learned trial Judge found that the provision of Section 13 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act providing for payment of decretal dues by way of instalments will note be applicable and as per the notification under Section 3 of the Act, the Act itself has no application to certain institutions including the Plaintiff. But it was held that the judgment -debtor can take shelter/under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the question of interest is concerned, though the learned Subordinate Judge held that the interest calculated by the Plaintiff is not excessive but did not grant any interest either pendente lite or future and only decreed the sum claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and he also held that the payment should be made by half -yearly instalments. The Bank has come up in appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Subominate Judge.

(2.) MR . S.N. Sinha appearing for the Bank contends that the Court below committed an error in not awarding interest both pendente lite and future and this Court should grant the same. He also contended that the direction to pay the decretal dues in instalments is wholly inequitable and such a direction has been passed without any application of mind and the said direction should be suitably modified.

(3.) AS has been stated earlier, in respect of commercial transactions unless the Court finds sufficient reason to award interest at a lower rate even for the period subsequent to the decree till the date of realisation, there is no justification not to award interest at the agreed rate. In the permises as aforesaid, I find no justification for non -awarding of interest by the learned Subordinate Judge both pendente lite and future. Accepting Mr. Sinha's contention, therefore, I would direct that the decretal amount shall carry interest a (the agreed rate from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and also from the date of the decree till realisation of the amount.