M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil revision filed by the petitioners Judgment- debtors (for brevity, the 'judgment-debtors') against the order of the executing Court dated 23.11.1994. The Executing Court while rejecting the objections of the Judgment-debtors concluded that the Decree-holders- respondents (for brevity, the 'Decree-holder') was entitled to interest on the total amount of Rs. 13,387.10 although the same includes the interest.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Judgment-debtors had availed a cash credit hypothecation limit upto Rs. 15,000/- on 13.11.1979 for purchase of cloth etc. for their shop. The Decree-holder had sanctioned the said facility to the Judgment-debtors on interest at the rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rests under the terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement and a demand pronote dated 13.11.1979. As a collateral security, the Judgment- debtors furnished the guarantee of equitable mortgage by mortgaging the house belonging to one Smt. Vidya Wati and the registered title deed was deposited with the Decree-holder on 13.11.1979. The Decree-holder filed a suit against the Judgment-debtors for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 6,789.50 as principal amount and Rs. 6,597.60 as interest from the defendants. The averments made by the Decree-holder are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint and the same read as under :- "8. That according to the bank record and statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in regular course of business, the amount due with interest upto 31.12.1982 from the defendants comes to Rs. 6789.50 as per copy of account enclosed. Beside the said amount of Rs. 6789.50 a sum of Rs. 6597.60 is also due on account of interest from 1.1.1983 to 2.12.1984. Thus a sum of Rs. 13387.10 is due and recoverable from the defendants upto date." The trial Court passed the decree on 29.5.1986 and directed that the Decree-holder was entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,387.10 by sale of mortgaged property and the decree reads as under :- "Plaint presented on 4.2.1984. This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me (U.B. Khanduja, HCS, Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra) in the presence of Sh. D.P. Goyal, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sh. S.C. Sharma, Advocate for the defendants. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiff bank is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13387.10 by sale of the mortgaged property, described above, from the sale of hypothecated goods and in case of deficiency the balance amount shall be realized from the other property of the defendants. The plaintiff bank is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 13% per annum of the principle (principal ?) amount with quarterly rest with effect from 4.2.1984 till the realization of the amount." A perusal of the decree shows that the Decree-holder was entitled to recover interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the principal amount with quarterly rests w.e.f. 4.2.1984 till its realisation. In the execution application, the Decree-holder made a claim before the Executing Court that it was entitled to charge interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the whole of the decretal amount of Rs. 13,387.10. However, the contention of the Judgment-debtors was that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the principal amount has to be considered in view of the decree passed, namely interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the principal amount. The Court while passing the decree after specifying the amount of Rs. 13,387.10, specifically ordered the recovery of interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the principal amount which is clearly described in paragraph 8 of the plaint by the Decree-holder itself.
(3.) AS the amount involved was trivial in nature and substantial amount stood already paid. I have passed an order on 22.7.2001 directing Shri Rajesh Garg. learned counsel for the Decree-holder to seek instructions as to whether the Decree-holder i.e. Punjab National Bank was prepared to accept a lump sum amount to settle the accounts finally. However, at the commencement of the hearing the learned counsel showed the inability of the Decree-holder to agree to any such settlement.;