MANGAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BAJRANG BALI
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Mangal Singh and Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Mehar Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS is an appeal on a certificate by Chopra J. against his judgment, dated 4 -6 -1951, under S. 52 of Pepsu Ordinance No. X of 2005 bk.
(2.) IN a money suit by Harkishan Dass, father of Bajrang Bali respondent, against Mangal and others, appellants, the parties entered into a compromise, in consequence of which a decree for Rs. 865/ - and costs amounting to Rs. 131/14/ -, all totalling to Rs. 996/14/ -, was passed in favour of Harkishan Dass and against the present appellants on 22 -1 -1937. The contract entered into between the parties compromising the suit provided for discharge of the decretal amount by certain instalments, with the condition that in the event of default the entire amount would become payable, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of the suit to realisation. The judgment -debtors not having paid any instalment, the decree -holder took out execution of the decree on 6 -7 -1937, for an amount of Rs. 1,215/14/ -, all told.
There was a second compromise between the parties on 17 -3 -1938, whereby the amount then payable was agreed to between the parties at Rs. 1,192/ - and they further agreed to the payment of the amount by the judgment -debtors by six monthly instalments of Rs. 16/ - payable on 15th Har and 15th Magh of each year, with a further Stipulation that in the event of default the total remaining amount would become immediately due and would carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the compromise, that is, from 17 -3 -1938. The judgment -debtors made default in the payment of the instalment due on 15th Har, 2002 bk, but paid two instalments on 15th Magh, 2002 bk.
In the meantime the original decree -holder having died, his son Bajrang Bali respondent again took out execution on 16 -2 -1946 (15th Phagan 2002 bk), giving credit for the instalments already paid, for Rs. 968/ - as principal, Rs. 1,442/13/ - as interest calculated at the stipulated rate from the date of the compromise, and Rs. 2/9/6 as costs of the execution application, all coming to Rs. 2,413/6/6. To this execution application of the decree -holder, the objections of the judgment -debtors, appellants, were (a) that no default in the payment of instalments had been made, and (b) that the interest charged was penal and should be relieved against.
The executing Court found against the judgment -debtors on both the grounds and dismissed their objections by its order dated 26th Har 2006 bk. In appeal the learned District Judge by his order, dated 22 -8 -1949, found that there had been no default on the part of the judgment -debtors and so accepting the appeal dismissed the execution application of the decree -holder. In second appeal by the decree -holder a learned Judge of this High Court accepted the appeal by his order, dated 4 -6 -1951, finding against the judgment -debtors on both the grounds urged by them, and directed that the execution application of the decree -holder be proceeded with in accordance with law but upon an application of the judgment -debtors granted them a certificate for appeal to a Division Bench of this High Court according to the provisions of S. 52 of Pepsu Ordinance No. X of 2005 bk.
(3.) IN this appeal the Learned Counsel for the judgment -debtors -appellants has frankly conceded that there was default in the payment of the instalment due on 15th Har, 2002 bk. Upon this, therefore, there is no longer any controversy between the parties and the learned single judge reached the correct conclusion that there had been default in the payment of that instalment and thus the decree -holder -respondent was entitled to apply in execution for realisation of the remaining amount due under the decree subject to the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties on 17 -3 -1938.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.