VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of C.R. No. 3844 of 2004, titled Mutti Commission Agents v. Shingara Singh and others, C.R. No. 5444 of 2006, titled Shangara Singh v. Mutti Commission Agents as common question of law and facts arise in these petitions. The facts are being taken from C.R. No. 3844 of 2006.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 14,72,087.62 along with interest against the respondents. Said suit was decreed on 22.4.1999 and decree for a sum of Rs. 14,34,587.62 along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from 30.9.1998 till the date of decree and also future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till actual realisation was passed in favour of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed RFA No. 2609 of 2004 which was admitted by this Court. However, stay application was declined by this Court by passing the following order :- "Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the caveator. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are ready to furnish security in respect of the decretal amount. The appeal is against the money decree passed by the trial Court. However, the trial Court has granted the decree in the sum of Rs. 14,34,587/- including interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit amounting to Rs. 1,96,420/- at the rate of 2/- per mensem. Since the money decree has been passed in favour of the respondent- plaintiffs, I do not think that the decree-holders should be deprived of the fruit of the decree merely for the reason that the defendants are in appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the appellants shall deposit half of the interest pertaining to the period prior to the filing of the suit and the principal amount within a period of three months failing which the plaintiffs shall be entitled to execute the money decree in accordance with law. If the amount is deposited, the decree-holders shall withdraw the amount of furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. Civil Misc. stands disposed of in the above terms."
(3.) THE respondents challenged that order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP on 19.11.2004 by passing the following order :- "Heard the petitioner's counsel. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is given four months' time instead of three months' to deposit the amount from the date of the impugned order." Thereafter, an application was moved for modification of the order dated 23.9.2004 and the said application was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order :- "The appellants have sought modification of the order passed by this Court on September 23, 2004 with a prayer that pre-suit interest has not been granted at the rate of 2% per month and that the reading of the order shows that only half of the principal amount was required to be deposited. However, both the contentions are not correct. The pre-suit interest has been granted as claimed by the plaintiff i.e. at the rate of 2% per month. Since the rate of interest was prima facie found to be excessive, therefore, half of the interest amount was stayed but the principal amount was to be deposited in its entirety. The application is, thus, not tenable and is, therefore, dismissed." ;