DEEPAK SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 151 CPC has been preferred by the Judgment Debtor applicants (hereafter referred to as "Judgment Debtors) with a prayer that the interest which has accured on the decretal amount after the date of deposit of amount may be waived.

(2.) It has been averred in the application that the judgment debtors had deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lacs together with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 5.9.1997 to 31.5.1998 amounting to Rs. 79,585 in the Registry towards payment of the decretal amount in Civil Suit No. 55/88 titled Dr. Mukand Lal v. State of H.P. It is further averred that the correct due amount payable to the decree -holder now amounts to Rs. 87,954 and not Rs. 1,11,515.20 paise as claimed, even if the interest amount after 31.5.1998 is liable to be paid by the Judgment Debtors. The judgment debtors have further averred that due to inadvertence, notice of the deposit made towards the decretal amount in the Registry was not served by the Judgment Debtors on the Decree Holders and it also appears that no intimation of the amount having been deposited in this court was given by the Registry to the judgment debtors. The lapse has occurred due to "inadvertence and bona fidely", therefore, the interest after the date of deposit of the amount may be waived.

(2.) The decree holder non applicants resisted the prayer made in the application and by filing a counter affidavit claimed that under the decree passed against the judgment debtors, in all, a sum of Rs. 8,02,341.20 was payable by the judgment debtors as on 3.5.1999. As against this amount, the judgment debtors deposited a sum of Rs. 6,79,585 and a sum of Rs. 11,771 accrued as interest on the FDR and taking into account these payments, a sum of Rs. 1,10,985.20 plus further interest from 3.5.1999 onwards on the unpaid amount is due from the judgment debtors which they are liable to pay. It has been claimed that decree holder cannot be put to a disadvantage or loss because of the negligence or inaction on the part of the judgment debtors, particularly in view of the their conduct in the litigation throughout.