Jiwa Ram Ram Chander vs Punjab National Bank

V.K. Jhanji, J.

Punjab National Bank (Decreebolder) filed a suit against the petitioner (JudgmentDebtor) for recovery of Rs. 77,810.20 (Principal amount Rs. 65,000/. Interest Rs. 12,389.20 and Rs. 421/ as bank charges). The suit was decreed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was challenged before the first appellate Court and the same was also dismissed. Regular Second Appeal wasdismissed by this Court on 1.6.1988. When the decreeholder sought execution of decree, judgmentdebtor raised objection that the bank is not entitled to charge interest of Rs. 12,389.20 which was decreed as the decreeholder is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount. His precise objection was that the principal amount is only Rs. 65,000/ and interest has been awarded @ 12% p.a. only from the date of filing of the suit till realisation and as such interest before filing of the suit was not allowed. Certain other objections were also raised. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order disposed of the objection petition holding that the bank is entitled to recover the decretal amount i.e. Rs. 77,810.20 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

Being aggrieved of the order of learned Executing Court, the'' judgmentdebtor has filed the present revision petition.

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the judgmentdebtor is that the trial Court had framed an issue to the effect as to whether bank is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate ? The finding of the trial Court on that issue was that the bank is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the institution till realisation and as such the relief of realisation of interest prior to the filing of the suit must be deemed to have been declined by the trial Court, He further submitted that this Court at the time of deciding Regular Second Appeal also held that the bank was entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till recovery in accordance with the provisions of Section 34, Civil Procedure Code. He laid stress on the expression "principal amount" i.e. Rs. 65,000/ only and not what was decreed by the trial Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. The judgmentdebator has not been able to show how the decretal amount claimed is not the "principal amount". Merely because it includes interest from the date of the advance till the date of the suit, it cannot be said that it is not the principal sum. This Court, in Jagdamba Rice Mills and others v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, AIR 1990 Punjab and Haryana 60, has held that the principal amount found due not only means the principal amount as such but also the amount due on interest which has become part of the principal amount as per calculation of the bank.

In the present case, Rs. 12,389.20 represented the interest which was found due on the principal amount of Rs. 65.000/. When the suit was filed by the decreeholder, the suit was decreed, but the learned trial Court, instead of granting 18% interest from the date of institution of the suit till realisation, as claimed by the decreeholder in its suit, granted only 12% p.a. interest from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. When the matter was pending before this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2375 of 1987, this Court only clarified that the decreeholder shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till recovery in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any other infirmity in the order of the Executing Court. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.