RAJINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount with interest against the defendants i.e. the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. Trial Court decreed the suit and also allowed interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. Plaintiff filed execution application seeking execution of the decree. The defendant-judgment debtors filed objections, inter alia, alleging that since the loan was obtained for agricultural purposes, the interest could not have been allowed at a rate more than 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. The decree holder in its reply controverted the stand of the judgment debtors taken in the objection by filed (filing) a reply. The executing Court on a consideration of the matter, dismissed the objections by order dated 6.4.1992. The executing Court came to the conclusion that defendant-petitioner himself admitted in Court by making a statement to pay the loan amount along with interest at the agreed rate i.e. 16% per annum and also prayed for allowing him to make the payment in installments and therefore, they could not now raise any objection in that behalf. Hence this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan was obtained for agricultural purposes and the Court below ought not to have allowed interest at the rate of 16% per annum and in any case in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court ought to have allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation but the executing Court failed to appreciate this contention and thus erred in dismissing the objections.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the contention has no merit and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled by now that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is bound to execute the same as it is except in cases where it comes to the conclusion that the decree sought to be executed is void, uncertain and vague and is thus not capable of being executed or that the decree is without jurisdiction. In all other cases, the executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it is. The judgment debtors if aggrieved against the decree qua the interest part or otherwise, the only remedy available to them is to take the matter in appeal and get the same modified. It is not open to the executing Court to reduce or enhance or even vary the rate of interest. Support for this view can be had from the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, 1990 AIR(SC) 2177. In this view of the matter, I see no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the executing Court. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. No costs.