- (1.) The plaintiff, State Bank of India, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 93347.18 p. on account of amount due under the Cash Credit (Factory Type) account with interest up to 25th April, 1977 by sale of pledged goods and the machinery accepted as collateral security towards satisfaction of the aforesaid amount and also by sale of the property, the details of which were given in the plaint.
(2.) The suit was contented on behalf of the defendants-respondents. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and passed a decree in the following terms:- "In the light of my findings on the above issues the suit of t e plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 93,347.18 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the amount. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to realise this amount by sale of the goods and the machinery belonging to the defendants and pledged with the plaintiff as collateral security and also by sale of the property No. B-XXI-837, Partap Nagar, Ludhiana, fully mentioned in the hand-note of the plaint, belonging to the defendants, the title deeds whereof are deposited with the bank by way of equitable mortgage as collateral security. However, if the defendants pay the decretal amount through installments of Rs. 1000/- per month, regularly, with interest @ 18% per annum starting from 15-4-1980, the plaintiff shall not sell the goods, machinery and the immovable property." The plaintiff Bank was dissatisfied with the said decree of the trial Court as to the rate of interest allowed as well as the installments allowed by the trial Court and, therefore, filed appeal. No appeal or cross-objections were filed on behalf of the defendants. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 6% though no cross-objections were filed on behalf of the defendants. However, as regards installments, the decree of the trial Court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff will pay the same in installments of Rs. 25,000/- per annum with 6% future interest on the principal amount of Rs. 80,000/- w.e.f. 29th February, 1980 till the realisation of the entire decretal amount. It was also ordered that in case of default of payment of any installments of due date, the remaining outstanding amount of decree would be realised by the Bank in lump sum through the sale of mmreab1e or immovable property belonging to the defendants. With these findings and observations, the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the decree passed by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the present suit was not a simple suit for the recovery of money but was a suit for the recovery of money by sale of the immovable or immovable property as contemplated under Order 34 of the Civi1 Procedure Code. Thus urged the learned counsel that the plaintiff was entitled to the rate of interest not under Section 34 of the Civi1 Procedure Code but under Order 34 Rule 11. thereof. It was also contended that the words in Order 34, Rule 11, "on the principal amount found or declared due on the mortgage" not only mean the principal amount but also the amount due on interest, which has become part of the principal. In support of this contention he referred to Jafar Husain v. Bishambhar Nath, AIR 1937 All 442, Mangat Rai v. Babu Singh, AIR 1927 Lahore 445: and Punjab and Sindh Bank Ltd. v. Roora Mal Sodhi, (1969) 71 Pun LR 310.;