MEHAR CHAND Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF resume of the facts is that the defendant-judgment-debtor took a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff-decree-holder. Plaintiff-decree-holder obtaining an ex parte decree for an amount of Rs. 3400/ -. It was also ordered in the decree that the plaintiff-decree-holder will be entitled to 6 per cent interest per annum' on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

(2.) JUDGMENT -debtor deposited Rs, 4280/-on May 20, 1990, alleging to be payment in full and final satisfaction of the decree. This amount is withdrawn by the respondent-decree-holder Judgment-debtor-petitioner has calculated interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as ordered in the decree on the Principal amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment. Petitioner's contention is that by the impugned order the executing Court erred in law in holding that the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum pendente lite on the adjudged interest as well, which, according to the petitioner, is against the statutory provisions of S. 34 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) and also against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel, relying on State of Punjab v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177; Devinder Kumar v. Syndicate Bank, 1994 (1) 106 Pun LR 1; Krishan Lal v. State Bank of Patiala, (1990) 97 Pun LR 132; Jagdish Chander v. Punjab National Bank, 1994 (1) 106 Pun LR 211 : (AIR 1994 Punj and Har 98) and Mhada-gonda Ramgonda Patil v. Shripaj Balwant Raindade, AIR 1988 SC 1200, contended that if the decree is against the provisions of S. 34 of the Code, the executing Court is entitled to consider the point of legality of the decree and to execute only that part which is legal and in accordance with S. 34 of the Code.