Judgment :- Vummidiar Agencies (for short 'the firm' - first defendant) is a partnership firm doing business at No.162, Anna Salai, Madras-2. Defendants 2 to 4 are the partners of the firm. Union Bank of India, carrying on banking business at No. 24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, the plaintiff made certain advances to firm. When the firm made default in honouring its commitments, in the sense of discharging the advances taken by way of loan by them, the plaintiff-bank was rather constrained to file C.S. No. 473 of 1977. 2. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21, 85, 191.65 with interest thereon at the rate of 16 per cent per annum. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into between the plaintiff-bank and the firm. In the compromise, three items of properties belonging to the family of the partners were offered as security for the due discharge of the amount of the consent decree. Thirumathi V. Shantha (applicant in Application No.4333 of 1989) and Thirumathi V. Srirangammal (applicant in Application No. 4334 of 1989) were also included as parties to the compromise decree, though they were not parties to the suit, inasmuch as they were having certain interests in those three items of immovable properties offered as security for the due satisfaction of the decree. Based on the compromise, a consent decree was passed on 6-2-1978 for a sum of Rs. 22, 61, 720.75, inclusive of costs with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The terms of the decree provided for payment of the amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 60, 000/- each and the first instalment was to be paid on or before 15th March, 1978 and all subsequent instalments to be payable on or before the 15th day of each and every succeeding English calendar month. It was also provided therein that if there was a single default in payment of any of the monthly instalments, then the entire decretal amount shall become payable forthwith and the plaintiff shall be at liberty to execute the decree for recovery of the same. There shall be a charge for the amount of the decree and for payment of all costs, charges and expenses and all their rights, title and interest including the reversionary right on the immovable properties offered as security. There shall be a charge for the amount of the decree and for payment of all costs, charges and expenses and all their rights, title and interest including the reversionary right on the immovable properties offered as security. A bond under S.145, C.P.C. was executed on 16-9-1978. The defendants also agreed to registered the bond as well as the decree on or before 6-3-1978, with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Madras, after obtaining necessary tax clearance certificates. The bond, though presented for registration on 27-9-1978, yet it was registered on 18-4-1980, as a result of the delay involved in producing the income-tax clearance certificates by the defendants. Though the defendants did not effect payment of the instalments as contemplated by the decree, yet they were making payment everyday on and from March, 1978 not less than Rs.1, 000/- till up to 30th November, 1981. Thereafter, for no reason whatever, they stopped payments. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff-bank filed E.P. No.1 of 1982 for the sale of the securities. The sale was ordered on 5-3-1982 and proclamation was also settled. When the sale was fixed, the debtor-firm came before this Court with various applications seeking stay of sale and praying for permission for sale of one of the immovable properties offered as security, namely Vummidiar Shopping Complex by way of a private negotiation and thereby to enable it to discharge the decree debt and obtain necessary reliefs as prayed for. Certain shops in the complex were sold and some payments have been made from the sale proceeds towards the discharge of the decree. Thereafter, nothing took place. Consequently, the plaintiff-bank came forward with Application No.2748 of 1989 praying for a direction to the Commissioner already appointed, namely, Messrs Murray and Co., put up the remaining portion of Vummidiar Shopping Centre for sale on a date to be fixed by this Court. 4. Applications Nos.4333 and 4334 of 1989 had been filed respectively by V. Shantha and V. Srirangammal relatives of the partners to pass an order cancelling in toto the securities furnished under S.145, C.P.C. and to discharge each of them from further liabilities with or without the payment of Rs. 59, 683/-. Subsequent to the filing of applications learned counsel on both sides concede that even this amount of Rs. 59, 683/- had been paid making a total payment of an amount equivalent to Rs. 22, 61, 720.75. 5. 59, 683/-. Subsequent to the filing of applications learned counsel on both sides concede that even this amount of Rs. 59, 683/- had been paid making a total payment of an amount equivalent to Rs. 22, 61, 720.75. 5. The plaintiff-Bank resisted those two applications Nos. 4333 and 4334 of 1989. Similarly, the debtor-firm resisted Application No.2748 of 1989, filed by the bank. 6. Even at the outset, I want to make it clear that the objections regarding the maintainability of these applications taken by both sides was not pressed and they agreed for disposal of all these applications on merits on other objections. 7. The debtors contend for the cancellation of the security offered on the following grounds:- (1) The security bond itself was registered for payment of Rs. 22 lakhs and since the said amount had been admittedly paid, the security becomes unenforceable and there is no further obligation cast upon them to pay any sum towards interest. Even otherwise, as the plaintiff-bank-decree-holder committed laches is not enforcing the decree when the first default occurred on the 15th March, 1978, they cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay interest; and (2) Since the decree is not registered, the same is inexecutable on the face of the express provisions adumbrated in S. 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. I am affraid that there is a fallacy in the first contention of the debtors. A sum of Rs. 22 lakhs had to be mentioned in the security bond at the time of registration for the purpose of levy of stamp duty because the amount due on the date of execution of the bond was about Rs. 22 lakhs. It is to be remembered here that the bond executed under S. 145, C.P.C. was for the due payment of the money due under the decree passed in the suit and their is nothing in the bond limiting the liability to Rs. 22 lakhs only. The terms of the decree make it abundantly clear that the debtors were liable for the payment of Rs. 22, 61, 720.75 with interest at 15 per cent per annum. In such state of affairs, it is too much for the debtors to contend that they are not liable to pay any amount beyond Rs.22 lakhs and consequently, the security bond deserves cancellation. 9. 22, 61, 720.75 with interest at 15 per cent per annum. In such state of affairs, it is too much for the debtors to contend that they are not liable to pay any amount beyond Rs.22 lakhs and consequently, the security bond deserves cancellation. 9. No doubt true it is that the debtors did not effect payment towards the discharge of the decree by paying any lump sum monthly instalments of Rs. 60, 000/-. But what they had been doing on and from the middle of March, 1978, the date on which the first instalment became due is that they were paying daily a sum not less than Rs. 1, 000 /- till up to 30th November, 1981 and they started committing default thereafter. In such state of affairs, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff-bank was rather callous and negligent in not taking steps to execute the decree. Further the execution of the decree is possible only after the registration of the decree as well as security bond and the delay in non-registration was attributable to the non-furnishing of the requisite tax clearance certificates by the defendants till up to the middle of April, 1980 and the bond was in fact registered on 18-4-1980. When the defendants stopped making the daily payments after 30th November, 1981, the plaintiff-bank within a reasonable time of one month filed E.P. No.1 of 1982 for the sale of the securities. It is only the debtors and the applicants herein, who are the close relations of the debtors made all sorts of obstructions for the execution of the decree by resorting to the filing of all sorts of applications before this Court. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there was any laches on the part of the plaintiff-bank in taking steps for realisation of the money the moment the debtors committed the first default. 10. The other contention revolving on the non-registration of the consent decree is of no consequence, in the circumstances of the case. For appreciating this contention, it is necessary to refer to certain clauses in the memo of compromises and the consent decree passed thereon. Clause 8 of the memo of compromise reads thus : "8. 10. The other contention revolving on the non-registration of the consent decree is of no consequence, in the circumstances of the case. For appreciating this contention, it is necessary to refer to certain clauses in the memo of compromises and the consent decree passed thereon. Clause 8 of the memo of compromise reads thus : "8. Defendants agree and undertake to register the decree/bond they will furnish along with other owners of the abovesaid properties, with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Madras." Clause (14) of the compromise decree reads as follows :- "(14) That the defendants herein do on or before 6-3-1978 register this decree and the security-bond they shall furnish along with the owners of the properties set out in the schedule hereunder with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Madras." * 11. From Cl. 8 of the memo of compromise, the intention of the parties can be clearly spelt out that either the bond or the decree alone required to be registered, on the face of the two words, 'decree' and 'bond' being separately by a stroke ('/'). But the decree has been drafted in such a way in Cl. (14) as extracted above that both the decree and the security bond shall be registered and this is made clear by the insertion of the conjunction 'and' between the two words 'decree' and 'security-bond'. Such a mole of mistake made whilst drafting the decree has made such a hollow-bellow of a mountain, in the sense of constructing a legal argument that the decree, which is not registered, is inexecutable. Such an argument is of no assistance to the debtors, in the circumstances of the case, when especially the security bond had admittedly been registered. The unregistered decree can be regarded as a simple money decree and for realisation of the amount to be paid under the decree, the security bond shall be in force. As such, this contention of the debtors bristles next to nothing. 12. In the result, Applications Nos. 4333 and 4334 of 1989 are dismissed. Application No. 2748 of 1989 is allowed and the Commissioner already appointed, namely Messrs Murrary and Co., is directed to put up the remaining portion of the Vummidiar Shopping Centre for sale on 25-6-1990. But, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Order accordingly.