- (1.) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 19.2.2002, passed by the learned Executing Court, Chandigarh, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner-firm under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'), for recording satisfaction of the judgement and decree dated 6.6.1988, passed in Civil Suit No. 97 of 1984, titled as Central Bank of India v. M/s Ramesh Book Depot. It is appropriate to mention that a final decree was passed for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,14,726.26 paise. The Decree Holder-respondent was held entitled to future interest @ 16.15% per annum with quarterly rests. The Judgment Debtor-petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- representing the period January 1990 to March, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, the balance amount was outstanding. The Decree Holder respondent raised various objections. Firstly, it was pointed out that C.R. 3388 of 2002 the objection petition already filed by the Judgment Debtorpetitioners was dismissed having been not pressed on 23.8.1993 and, therefore, the application filed by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners for recording satisfaction of the decree was not maintainable. It was alleged that the aforementioned application was misuse of the process of law. However, on merits the decree was admitted and it was also accepted that an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid up to 3.3.1992 by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners. The principal question debated before the Executing Court was the mode of calculation of principal amount as well as interest. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Executing Court recorded the conclusion that in law interest has to be first adjusted and thereafter the amount paid could be applied for satisfying the principal amount. The aforementioned conclusion is discernible from perusal of para 8, which read as under:- "8. So far as the question of adjusting the payments made by the JDs from time to time, firstly towards interest and not towards the principal is concerned, it is found that the DH-bank was justified in doing so. Undisputedly there was no directions of the court, passing the decree or of the executing court at any stage, as to how the part payments being made by the JD are to be adjusted. The JDs have also not brought anything on the file to show that they made the payments, with a request to the bank adjust the same towards the principal amount. There is even otherwise no agreement pleaded or produced on the file to show that the payments were to be adjusted firstly towards the principal amount. In the absence of all this, it was the sheer discretion of the DH-bank to adjust the payments made, as per its choice. So, it having adjusted the payments towards interest first and thereafter towards the principal, cannot be said to be wrong in its decision and the JD-applicant has no right to challenge this act of the DH, at this stage."
(2.) With regard to payment of interest, the plea raised by the Judgment Debtor-petitioners was also rejected in para 9 and the view of the Executing Court as reflected in para 9 reads as under:- "9. So far as the question of granting of interest is concerned, it is found that the JD-applicant has erred in claiming that only 16.15% p.a. was granted, as per Ex. P-28. A further perusal of Ex. P-28 shows that the interest mentioned therein is @ 16.15% p.a. with monthly rests. The bank has claimed the interest @ 16.15% p.a. with quarterly rests and not qua monthly rests. A perusal of the main file, in which judgment dt. 23.11.85 was passed shows that the bank had claimed the amount, by calculating interest with quarterly rests. The said suit was accordingly decreed by the court, accepting the same to be correct. In case, the court had intended to grant the interest @ 16.15% p.a. itself only, then it should have accordingly decreased the suit amount from Rs.1,14,762.26 Ps. also , by applying interest on annual basis and not with quarterly rests. One more point, which also deserves to be taken into consideration is that earlier also a similar objection petition/application was filed by the JD on 17.4.93. The bank filed reply thereto and thereafter the said objection petition/application was got dismissed, being not pressed. So, it shows that the JD was quite aware of the actual position and accordingly did not press the earlier objection petition and the present objection petition/application appears to be an afterthought one."
(3.) None has appeared for the Judgment Debtor-petitioners in support of the petition. However, I have heard Mr. S.S. Aulakh, learned counsel for the Decree Holder-respondent. Mr. S.S. Aulakh, learned counsel for the Decree Holderrespondent has argued that the principle of adjusting interest first to the amount due as followed by the Executing Court is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance in the cases of Meghraj v. Mst. Bayabai & others, AIR 1970 SC 161; Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited & another, AIR 1995 SC 1572; & M/s I.C.D.S. Ltd. V. Smithaben H. Patel, AIR 1999 SC 1036, and argued that in all the judgments it has been categorically held that payment made by a Judgment Debtor has to be first applied to interest and then to the principal amount. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.;