Decided on June 27,2006

Mining Engg. Corporation and Ors. Respondents


K. Gnanaprakasam, J. - (1.) THE appellant Bank originally filed the suit OS No. 10235/1991 before the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hail, at Bangalore, and it got transferred to the DRT, Bangalore and was taken as OA -1058/1995 and the same was decreed on 18.6.1997. That thereafter, the respondents/borrowers have filed an application to set aside the final order dated 18.6.1997, which was pending in IR No. 419/2005. They have also filed two applications, one to condone the delay in filing the said M.A. and another IA to stay further proceedings of the final order. Stay was also granted in respect of further proceedings. But in the meanwhile, the respondents have filed review application in RA -4/2005 alleging that the rate of interest claimed by the appellant Bank was only @ 16.5% p.a. simple but whereas, the Tribunal awarded interest at 16.5% p.a. compounded quarterly. During the pendency of the review application, the appellant Bank filed an application in IA -1050/2005 to amend the plaint contending that the Tribunal after careful consideration of the documents executed by the respondents and the pleadings on record and evidence, allowed the interest at 16.5% p.a. with quarterly rests, but however the words "with quarterly rests" were omitted in the prayer column of the plaint (in the Original Application) and the said omission was only an over -sight and inadvertence and sought for the amendment of the plaint.
(2.) THE Tribunal took up both the Review Application filed by the respondents and the application filed by the appellant Bank to amend the plaint, simultaneously and passed Orders on 3.2.2006, allowing the Review Application filed by the respondents/borrowers and dismissed the amendment application. As against the dismissal of IA -1050/2005, Appeal MA -43/2006 was filed and as against allowing the review application, appeal was filed in IN -67/2006. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the Appeal papers. On going through the original plaint filed by the appellant Bank, in para 20(a) of the plaint in prayer column, it reads, "Judgment and decree directing the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 13,61,179.90 and interest thereon at 16.5% p.a. from the date of suit till payment in full or realisation thereof. On the face of it, there is no prayer either for simple interest or for compounded quarterly. But however, at the time of passing of the order in the OA, the DRT granted interest current and future @ 16.5% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date or suit till the date of realisation.
(3.) THE respondents have produced the certified copy of the extract or the 'A' Dairy dated 18.6.1997 where in the Order the words "compounded quarterly" were interpolated it is the contention of the respondents that the said interpolation was not in the original order. It is further contended that such interpolation was made in the proof affidavit also filed on behalf of the Bank in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit and thereby pointed out that the words "compounded quarterly" clearly was an insertion and, therefore, they sought for a review before the Tribunal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.