KITABO Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 10.4.1992 of the executing Court dismissing objections filed by the petitioners-judgment-debtors in the execution proceedings of a compromise decree.

(2.) THE sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the date of passing of the decree, the decree-holder (Bank) is not entitled to charge interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the decretal amount and it can charge interest at the rate of 6% only. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgments reported as Siri Chand and another v. Central Bank of India, Yamunanagar, District Ambala and another, (1988-1) 93 PLR 473 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 49 (SC) : 2001(3) 20 PLR 837.

(3.) THE two judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioners (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. In those cases, it was the court which had adjudged the decretal amount as there was contest between the parties, whereas the basis of the decree being executed by the respondent-bank is a compromise arrived at between the parties. That being so, the petitioners cannot get any benefit on the basis of what was held in the judgment relied upon on this behalf. The terms of compromise are binding on them and as per those they are liable to pay 11 per cent interest on the decretal amount.