PNB DHARAMSHALA Vs. PREM SAGAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts regarding which the parties are not in variance, are that civil suit No. 60 of 1979, titled Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Prem Sagar Chaudhary and others, was filed in this court, wherein a compromise decree was passed as far back as on 19-3-1981, and the suit was decreed for the entire decretal amount of Rs. 2,02,331.30/- with costs against all the defendants and while decreeing the suit, it was ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- shall carry future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) Since the judgment-debtors failed to pay the amount in terms of the aforesaid decree, decree-holder Bank sued execution petition No. 19 of 1986, which was finally disposed of by this court on 14-3-1989. Again the present execution petition No. 32 of 1993, has been sued which was filed on 13-9-1993 and a sum of Rs. 1,20,444.39 was claimed to be due, outstanding and recoverable from the judgment-debtors as on 5-2-1990.

(3.) When the execution petition came up for consideration, the judgment-debtors filed objections, which have been registered as OMP No. 37 of 1996 in execution petition No. 32 of 1996 amongst other things plea of limitation, the decree having been adjusted as well as fully satisfied have been raised, it is the case of the objector that the objector- judgment debtor-3 has paid huge amount to the decree holder bank and he also arrived at a settlement and according to the objector, he had agreed to pay the amount due to the decree holder Bank by instalments. Statements of the parties were recorded and according to the objector while certifying the payment of Rs. 30,000/- this court had taken on record the settlement and the execution petition No. 19 of 1986 was dismissed by speaking order of 14-3-1989. Case of the objector further is that payments have not been appropriated as per instructions and he is not liable for the payment of the remaining amount for which the present execution, has been levied. According to the objector the amounts ought to have been appropriated towards principal first and particularly against the interest carrying part of the decree and not in the manner as those have been appropriated by the decree-holder Bank. These objections have been duly replied to pay the decree-holder. Bank and according to them all the amounts paid by the judgment debtor-3-objector have been duly adjusted and accounted for in the statement of account filed with the execution; the execution is within limitation and there is no legal impediment to proceed with the execution in the present case. It was further averred by the decree-holder Bank that the judgment debtor-3-objector did not make payment as per compromise (Ex. R-2) which was basis of disposal of execution petition No. 19 of 1986, as such the decree-holder Bank is well within its right to maintain this execution and to recover the amount as claimed in the execution petition. Case of the decree-holder Bank further is that the statement of account otherwise is correct and the amount is due from the judgment-debtors to the decree- holder bank.