Gurnam Singh vs M/s. Lajja Ram Parmod Kumar

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.1.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, whereby in execution petition, direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay future interest to be calculated from the date of institution till realization of the decretal amount. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:-

(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:

Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.

Explanation I.-In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).

Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.

(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment. or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the executing court is against the decree as the decree is silent with regard to the interest.

I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Relevant part of the decree reads as under:-

It is ordered that the present suit is hereby decreed with cost. A decree for recovery of Rs. 31,750/- (Rs. 25,000/- on account of principal and Rs. 6,750/- on account of interest is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff firm and against the defendant with cost and with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

Perusal of Section 34(2) CPC clearly shows that if the decree is silent with regard to award of future interest, then the same is to be calculated from the date of decree. In view of this, present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. However, the decree-holder will be entitled to interest from the date of decree till realization.