- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dt. Sept. 28, 1988, whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtors was dismissed.
(2.) A decree for a sum of Rs. 5,53,328.44 with costs was granted in favour of the plaintiff Bank. The plaintiff Bank was also allowed interest at the rate of 131h per cent. per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of recovery and also future interest at the same rate from the date of the decree till realisation of the decretal amount. It was also ordered that the decretal amount can also be recovered by sale of properties lying mortgaged and hypothecated with the plaintiff Bank. When the execution was sought, objections were raised inter alia that as per the provisions of S.34, C.P.C. (hereinafter called the Code), interest from the date of the decree till realisation should not have been allowed at the rate of more than six per cent. per annum on the principal amount and that compound interest could not have been allowed. The decree-holder was entitled only to the future interest on the principal amount which according to the judgment-debtors was Rs. 5,43,674.50 and not on the decretal amount, i.e., Rs. 5,58,328.44. It was contested on behalf of the decree-holder. The executing Court found that the interest at the rate of 131/2 per cent. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment would be charged as simple interest and not as compound interest. It was further found that prior to the institution of the suit, as per the agreement between the parties, compound interest was being charged by the Bank and the whole amount due from the defendants on the date of filing of the suit would become the principal amount on which pendente lite and future interest is to be allowed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the judgment-debtors petitioners submitted that from the decree-sheet, it is evident that the principal amount is Rs. 5,43,674.16 and, therefore, the future interest of 131/2 per cent. will only be on that amount and not on the principal amount, as per the provisions of S.34 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, if the decree was against the said provisions, the executing Court was competent to go into the matter. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Shri Chand v. Central Bank of India, Yamunanagar, (1988) Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 547 and Food Corporation of India v. Samana Co-operative Markeging-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Samana Mandi, (1987) 1 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 778.;