PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAM DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit of the petitioner -Bank was decreed on September 13, 1990 for recovery of Rs. 67,120/ - with interest at the rate of 14 1/2% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of the suit till its realisation. Decretal amount could be recovered by sale of mortgaged properties, i.e., land measuring 88 kanals and the tractor as detailed in the heading of the plaint.

(2.) In the execution taken out by the Bank, judgment debtor filed an objection petition contending that the decree was regarding the agricultural loan and the trial Court has wrongly granted interest at the contractual rate in violation of Sec. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bank, however, in reply took the stand that the rate of interest was rightly granted by the Court decreeing the suit. The objection raised found favour with the executing Court and it was held that the decree holder is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation. Aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court could not go into the question of grant of interest and vary the rate of interest granted by the Court while decreeing the suit. In other words, the contention is that it is only the Court which granted the decree or the Appellate/Revisional Court which can change the rate of the interest and the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to do so. It was bound to execute the decree as it is. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Sec. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the interest is to be calculated in terms of Order 34 Rule 11. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed on Punjab National Bank v/s. Rajinder Kumar , Chahan Singh v/s. Punjab National Bank and State of Punjab and Ors. v/s. Krishan Dayal Sharma, : A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2177.