SUBHASH KATARIA Vs. RABINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nutshell the facts leading to the passing of the order dated November 26, 1988, impugned in this revision are that the entrustment of certain gold ornaments was made to the judgment debtor and on his failure to return and misappropriating the same criminal and civil litigation ensued between the parties resulting in a compromise decree as far back as October 12, 1984 with respect to the balance amount of Rs. 23,500/- with 12% compound interest as envisaged by National Saving Certificate (VIth issue). The execution of the decree was sought on November 28, 1984 with respect to Rs. 35,404/- due as on March 9, 1985. There was no dispute raised with respect to the amount. However, the amount was paid in driplets and the execution was consigned on payment of Rs. 21,600/- as partly satisfied on November 4, 1986. On November 8, 1986 second execution application with respect to the remaining amount was preferred. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 35,600/- has been deposited or paid. The amount of Rs. 12,448/- is being claimed as the balance amount due on account of interest. The amounts stands deposited by way of cheque in the Executing Court, certified by the bank 'good for payment'.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent states that in fact they have received Rs. 33,600/-. There is no dispute with respect to the payment of Rs. 12,448/- deposited on January 10, 1986, by the petitioner in Court. Both the parties have filed counter affidavits. Without determining this issue the counsel for the petitioner undertakes to certify and satisfy the respondent with respect to the deposit of Rs. 2,000/-, on March 10, 1986 by giving sufficient particulars of the deposit. If the amount is found to have been deposited the petitioner shall be at liberty to withdraw the same and in case the respondent had already received it, the petitioner shall be entitled for its refund. This only relates to the amount of Rs. 2,000/- alleged to have been deposited by the judgment debtor and not to the subsequent payment of Rs. 12,448/-. The learned counsel for the respondent states at the Bar that on payment of Rs. 12,448/- the decree holder shall not claim any further interest and will give a statement on receipt of Rs. 12,448/- and on the clarification with respect to Rs. 2,000/- the disputed amount that the decree stands satisfied. In view of this undertaking and the statement made by the counsel no further order is needed in this case.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent contends that the order dated May 7, 1988, which rejected the objections of the petitioner with respect to the rate of interest has become final between the parties as having not been challenged. It cannot be challenged while challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute that vide order dated May 7, 1988 the Executing Court did reject the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with respect to the interpretation of the decree to the effect that no interest was payable if decree stood satisfied, within three years of its passing. The decree has been read out in Court to me. By reading the decree in its totality, no such contention can be sustained.