T.R. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and another vs M/s. Sethuramdas Maheshkumar

This revision is filed against the order passed by learned principal sub Judge, Salem dt. 9-1-90 on a memo filed by the judgment-debtor in O.S.

No. 797/1982 for amending the decree.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 71,333.66 on two promissory notes. After trial, the learned sub Judge has granted a decree for

the said sum. A decree has been drafted by the Office of Sub Court, in which interest has been awarded at 24% per annum on the principal sum of

Rs. 50,000/- from the date of plaintiff till date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till date of realisation. The defendant has filed a memo

before the Sub Judge, Salem seeking amendment of the decree contending that the Court has not awarded any interest from the date of suit and

from the date of decree, in the judgment and therefore, awarding of interest in the decree is not correct and it has to be amended. The learned sub

Judge has rejected the memo holding that the decree has been drafted as per the judgment.

It is against this order of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem, the present Civil Rcvison Petition has been filed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would argue that in the judgments nothing has been stated against the payment of

interest from the date of filing of the suit or from the date of decree and therefore, awarding interest at two rates from these two dates is erroneous

and the decree is therefore liable to be amended. It may be noted that in the judgment, it is not stated that apart from the amount, mentioned in the

judgment, the rest of the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint has been either rejected or dismissed. If it has been specifically mentioned that the rest of

the claim is dismissed, there may be substance in the contention of the revision petitioner that the decree is not in accordance with the judgment and

therefore requires amendment. There cannot be any dispute over the proposition a decree shall agree with the judgment and if the decree is not in

the harmony with the judgment, the Court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake which has been committed. The question whether the plaintiff

is entitled to interest when the judgment is silent, has been considered by this court in the decision reported in Union of India (UOI) and Another

Vs. A. Venkataiah, wherein it has been held as follows :--

The jurisdiction to provide interest in the decree notwithstanding the fact that there is no reference to it in the judgment, is one which is peculiar to

money decrees, and the Courts are vested with such jurisdiction u/s 34, Civil Procedure Code. In the decree in a suit for the payment of money,

the Court can as its discretion, provide for the payment of reasonable interest on the principal adjudged (a) from the date of suit to the date of

decree; (b) in addition direct the payment of any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit; and (c)

may also direct the payment of further interest at such rate not exceeding 6 per cent as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the

date of the decree to the date of payment of or such earlier date as the court thinks fit.

In the present case also, the judgment is silent with regard to the payment of interest either from the date of plaint or from the date of decree.

Therefore, as per the above decision, there is nothing wrong in awarding interest to the amount decreed from the date of suit to the date of decree

and future interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. The decree drafted only provides for such interest

and it does not provide for any interest for any period prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, I am of opinion that the contention of the

revision petitioner that the decree is not in accordance with the judgment of the Court and therefore it has to be amended, and the dismissal of the

memo filed by the defendant for that purpose is a failure to exercise the powers vested with the court, is not a tenable one. The Civil Revision

Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Revision dismissed.