S M ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order of the executing court whereby the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment-debtor were ordered to be dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under :

(2.) THE respondent, State Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi (for short "the decree-holder") filed a suit against the petitioner-judgment-debtor (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment-debtor") on July 27, 1984, seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,71,396. 24 along with future interest at the rate of 13 1/2% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. In order to get this loan, the judgment-debtor mortgaged a plot of land belonging to him along with the deposit of the title deeds as a collateral security. The suit was decreed on November 8, 1986, and the executing court ordered the recovery of Rs. 3,71,396. 24 with costs and interest at the rate of 13 1/2% per annum from the date of suit till the realisation of the amount.

(3.) THE bank-decree-holder filed an execution application in which the judgment-debtor filed several objections. On August 5, 1989, counsel for the judgment-debtor made a statement that talks of compromise are going on and that the judgment-debtor be given some time and, in case of failure to settle the dispute, then the judgment-debtor would not press his objections against the execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor failed to settle the amount with the decree-holder and, therefore, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, the objections filed by the judgment-debtor were dismissed on August 8, 1989. The judgment-debtor filed the present short objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"), wherein several objections were taken but the only objection pressed before the executing court was that the decree had been passed by the court without determining the principal amount on which interest could be levied so as to arrive at the actual amount on which interest could be levied and, therefore, the decree in execution was not enforceable in law. This objection of the judgment-debtor was dismissed by the executing court primarily on two counts, i. e. , (i) that the objections filed by the judgment-debtor had already been dismissed earlier, i. e. , on August 8, 1989, on the basis of the statement made by counsel for the judgment-debtor, and (ii) the principal amount had already been determined by the trial court while passing the decree on the basis of the settled law that banks compute the interest at quarterly rests and after every quarter adding interest to the last balance and treating the same as the principal sum for the next quarter for computing interest. Accordingly, in the present case, the principal sum had been rightly arrived at by the trial court while passing the decree.