GURNAM SINGH Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -judgment-debtors have filed this revision against the executing Court's order dated November 10, 1993, whereby their objection petition is rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners, learned counsel contends that the judgment-debtors obtained a loan of Rs. 26,850/- for purchasing a tractor with a 9-line tiller. Therefore, it was a loan for agriculture purpose and under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) the bank was not entitled to charge interest more than 6 per cent per annum. His second contention is that under the agreement of loan the bank agreed to charge interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum only, but in the suit the decree -holder-respondent claimed interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, which was allowed by the Court. The petitioner-judgment-debtors could not resist that claim as they were proceeded ex parte. His third contention is that the decree-holder-respondent was not entitled to compound interest. It was entitled to recover interest on the principal amount of Rs. 26,850/- only and that too at the rate of 12 percent per annum only, but from the statement of account submitted by the bank in the Civil court, it is evident that the bank compounded the interest and clubbing the amount of interest along with the principal amount, it filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 26,900. 77 paise, which was decreed by the Civil Court.

(3.) BOTH the learned counsel relied on various authorities in support of their respective arguments.