INDERJEET Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,429/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. Suit was decreed by the trial Court. Trial Court also granted interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of recovery. Decree became final. Since, the amount was not paid, the plaintiff-decree holder took out execution. Petitioner-judgment debtor filed objection petition. He submitted that interest beyond 6% per annum could not be granted by the Court decreeing the suit as the loan was for agricultural purposes. It was also pointed out that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of rebate announced by the State Government was not adjusted in the loan amount of the objector. The executing court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 6428.04 paise was credited to the account of the objector on 30.8.1990 as per the instructions of the Government. As regards interest, it came to the conclusion that the decree holder is entitled to interest as awarded by the court decreeing the suit. The objection petition was consequently dismissed by the executing court by order dated 17.11.1992. It is the order of the executing court which is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the contention that the decree holder is not entitled to interest beyond 6% per annum. According to the learned counsel, the loan was taken by the petitioner from the respondent-bank for agricultural purpose and in view of that, interest beyond 6% per annum, could not be granted.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merit. The question, whether the loan was raised for agricultural purpose or for any other purpose, could be raised in the main suit by taking a plea in that behalf so as to enable the trial Court to return a finding, whether the loan was raised for agricultural purpose or for any other purpose, and to what rate of interest the plaintiff was entitled to. It is not for the executing court to go into this question and modify the decree passed by the court decreeing the suit. The executing court is bound to execute the decree as it is unless it comes to a conclusion that the decree is void, ambiguous and, therefore, not capable of being executed or is otherwise vague. This controversy has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2177. In that view of the matter, this revision is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the executing court on 7.9.1998. The executing court shall now proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. No costs.