RAMESH BOOK DEPOT Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 19.2.2002, passed by the learned Executing Court, Chandigarh, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner-firm under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'), for recording satisfaction of the judgement and decree dated 6.6.1988, passed in Civil Suit No. 97 of 1984, titled as Central Bank of India v. M/s Ramesh Book Depot. It is appropriate to mention that a final decree was passed for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,14,726.26 paise. The Decree Holder-respondent was held entitled to future interest @ 16.15% per annum with quarterly rests. The Judgment Debtor-petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- representing the period January 1990 to March, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, the balance amount was outstanding. The Decree Holder respondent raised various objections. Firstly, it was pointed out that C.R. 3388 of 2002 the objection petition already filed by the Judgment Debtorpetitioners was dismissed having been not pressed on 23.8.1993 and, therefore, the application filed by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners for recording satisfaction of the decree was not maintainable. It was alleged that the aforementioned application was misuse of the process of law. However, on merits the decree was admitted and it was also accepted that an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid up to 3.3.1992 by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners. The principal question debated before the Executing Court was the mode of calculation of principal amount as well as interest. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Executing Court recorded the conclusion that in law interest has to be first adjusted and thereafter the amount paid could be applied for satisfying the principal amount. The aforementioned conclusion is discernible from perusal of para 8, which read as under:-

(2.) With regard to payment of interest, the plea raised by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners was also rejected in para 9 and the view of the Executing Court as reflected in para 9 reads as under:-

(3.) None has appeared for the Judgment Debtor-petitioners in support of the petition. However, I have heard Mr. S.S. Aulakh, learned counsel for the Decree Holder-respondent. Mr. S.S. Aulakh, learned counsel for the Decree Holderrespondent has argued that the principle of adjusting interest first to the amount due as followed by the Executing Court is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance in the cases of Meghraj v. Mst. Bayabai & others, AIR 1970 SC 161; Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited & another, AIR 1995 SC 1572; & M/s I.C.D.S. Ltd. V. Smithaben H. Patel, AIR 1999 SC 1036, and argued that in all the judgments it has been categorically held that payment made by a Judgment Debtor has to be first applied to interest and then to the principal amount. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.