UCO BANK Vs. NAGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,45, 735/- which was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 20.4.1990. The trial court granted interest at the rate of 12.35% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. Executing court changed the rate of interest from 12.35% to 6% per annum and that too on the principal sum of Rs. 35000/- from 18.6.1989 till realisation of the decretal amount and the judgment debtors were directed to make payment after re- calculating the amount due in the above terms. Aggrieved by the order of the executing court the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

(2.) In response to notice, respondent No. 1 has put in appearance.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and change the terms thereof. The executing court is bound to execute the decree as it is. It can only refuse to execute the decree once it comes to the conclusion that it is without jurisdiction or is not capable of being executed. The Supreme Court in Corporation Dank v. D. S. Gowda and another, 1994 5 SCC 213 has clearly held that the Bank is entitled to interest at the agreed rate. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, 1990 AIR(SC) 2177that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. In the above situation, order of the executing court whereby it has changed the rate of interest and the amount on which it is payable, cannot be sustained. The orders under revision are set aside. Revision petition stands allowed accordingly, but with no order as to costs. Allowed.