CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated August 8, 1988, whereby the objection petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor was accepted.

(2.) THE Central Bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,514/ -. The defendant admitted the claim and consequently, the suit was decreed. As regards interest, it was directed that the defendant will also be liable to pay future interest at the rate of 15-1/2% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till realisation. It was also directed that in case the defendant failed to pay the amount of instalments as agreed the plaintiff will be within its right to recover the decretal amount at once by way of execution by the sale of the mortgaged property. The decree is dated October 18, 1983. Certain amount was paid by the judgment-debtor, but ultimately he failed to pay the instalments as agreed to. Consequently, the Central Bank of India sought execution of the decree wherein objection was raised that the decree holder was not entitled to more than six per cent interest and, therefore, the decree as such was executable A contention was also raised that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited vide challan on January 16, 1934, but the decree-holder had not credited this amount from that date in the account of the judgment-debtor. However, as regards this contention, the same was rejected because no notice was- given by the judgment-debtor as contemplated under Order 21, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure. As regards of the other contention regarding rate of interest, the executing Court found that the decree- holder was entitled to it at the rate of six per cent per annum only. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Siri Chand v. Central Bank of India, 1988 P. L. J. 351.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a decree for the recovery of money by sale, as the property was mortgaged and, therefore, after amendment in Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure the decree-holder was rightly allowed interest at the rate of 15-1/2% per annum. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the executing Court in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon State Bank of India v. M/s. Neeru Plastics, Ludhiana, (1984) 86 P. L. R. 382