JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail. Perused the order of learned executing Court dated 19.5.1998. 2. The decree was obtained by Vijaya Bank in Civil Suit No. 235/86 on 20.11.1987 for an amount of Rs. 38,125.25. The decree did not allow pendente lite interest. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- has been recovered towards the decree and is still being recovered and when he moved an application before the learned executing Court not to further recover the money, the same was dismissed. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor has submitted that the decree holder Vijaya Bank has not supplied the details as to how so much of amount has been recovered and that the executing Court may be stopped to recover any further amount and the decree holder be asked to give details of the amount by giving a proper statement. His further contention is that by order dated 5.3.1993 the executing Court had ordered that the interest at the rate of 12.5% can be recovered but the decree holder has recovered interest at the rate of 15% and later on at the rate of 17.5% as admitted by the learned counsel for Vijaya Bank. 4. Learned counsel for Vijaya Bank submitted that the judgment debtor could not have taken objections at a later stage because after notice u/O. 21 R. 22 CPC when objections are not taken, they are deemed to have been abandoned. Relying on Smt. Pushpa v. Ganpat Singh & Ors., (1977) Vol. 27 Raj. , Indian Law Reports, page 758, he submitted that principle of constructive res judicata is applicable to the execution proceedings and when judgment debtor does not take objection at appropriate stage, he will not be allowed to take the same at later stage. A Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Ramrup Rai v. Mst. Gheodhari Kuer & Ors., reported in AIR 1980 Patna page 197 , has also been cited in support of this contention. 5. So far as principle is concerned, it is well settled, as stated above. But in Raja Babu Kothari & Ors. v. Sayed Mohammad, AIR 1961 Raj. Gheodhari Kuer & Ors., reported in AIR 1980 Patna page 197 , has also been cited in support of this contention. 5. So far as principle is concerned, it is well settled, as stated above. But in Raja Babu Kothari & Ors. v. Sayed Mohammad, AIR 1961 Raj. page 227 , it has been observed that in execution proceedings when the judgment debtor failed to object that the amount realised was in excess of decretal amount, subsequent application for refund under section 47 of CPC was not barred. This view is based on Mohan Lal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1953 SC page 65 . So the pertinent questions before me are whether the decree holder could realise the pendente lite interest and whether lie could realise interest at mire rate of interest than what has been settled in order dated 5.3.1993? 6. So far as pendente lite interest is concerned, the decree does not provide it, therefore, the executing Court will not go behind the decree and will not allow the pendente lite interest to be charged. 7. So far as the order dated 5.3.1993 is concerned, it very well speaks that the rate of interest will be as per the agreement i.e. 12.5% because at that time the rate of interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India on such loans was 21/2% above the rate prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. The rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India was 10%, therefore, the executing Court passed the order on 5.3.1993 that at that time the rate of interest would be 12.5%. But so far as the subsequent interest is concerned, my attention has been drawn to Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which provides as under : "21-A.-Rates of interest charged by banking companies not to be subject to scrutiny by Courts.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (10 of 1918), or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any Court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive." 8. In view of this provision according to the learned counsel for the decree holder the judgment debtor cannot object to the rate of interest as per the agreement which is to be recovered after the order dated 5.3.1993 for the various periods according to the circulars of the Reserve Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner then cited N.M. Veerappa v. Canara Bank, AIR 1998 SC page 1101 , wherein it has been observed that the provisions under section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act are not intended to override the Central Legislation like the Civil Procedure Code or 0. 34 R. 11 of CPC. Here, the decree itself mentions that the future interest will be granted as per the agreement, not at the rate of 6% per month as provided under section 34 of CPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when the executing Court by order dated 5.3.1993 had fixed interest at the rate of 12.5%, the decree holder cannot recover more than what has been decided in the order dated 5.3.1993. This contention of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor does not hold water in view of the fact that the rate of interest as agreed between the parties cannot he changed. At the time when the learned executing Court decided the matter on 5.3.1993 the prevalent rate of interest was 12.5%. So as that time the interest paid was 12.5% which was alright. But later on by various circulars this rate has been increased and in the execution of a decree in which it was ordered that the rate of interest will be as per the agreement, the judgment debtor cannot say that the rate of interest was excessive, much so because he had never raised any objection about the rate of interest when a notice u/0. 21, R. 22 CPC was given to him. According to the learned counsel for the Bank the rate of interest has been increased from time to time and he has submitted that in view of the provision of Section 21-A the rate cannot be challenged before the Civil Court on the ground that it was excessive. 21, R. 22 CPC was given to him. According to the learned counsel for the Bank the rate of interest has been increased from time to time and he has submitted that in view of the provision of Section 21-A the rate cannot be challenged before the Civil Court on the ground that it was excessive. In Canara Bank v. P.R.N. Upadhyaya & Ors., JT 1998 (5) SC page 655 , an Ombudsman had taken a view that rate of interest chargeable on a loan was not term loan at the rate of 15% simple interest was held to be erroneous in view of Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the decree itself mentions that the future interest will he charged as per the agreement and as per the agreement the executing Court levied 12.5%, on 5.3.1993 which was prevalent at that time but later on it has increased according to the various circulars of the Reserve Bank of India. Consequently, the only objection of the judgment debtor that the pendente lite interest will not be charged is maintainable and rest of his objections are disallowed. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and it is ordered that pendente lite interest will not be added and the interest thereafter will be charged as per order dated 5.3.1993 and thereafter as per various circulars of the Reserve Bank of India. The order of the learned executing Court is set aside to that extent and he is directed to stop recovery forthwith and is further directed to calculate the amount as per various circulars of the Reserve Bank of India applicable to such loans which were applicable after the rate of 12.5% in the year 1993. The counsel for the respondent-Bank is directed to submit all the circulars before the executing Court and the executing Court is directed to correctly calculate the amount keeping in view this order. If the amount receiver by the respondent is in excess, the excess amount would be returned to the judgment debtor and if there is still a balance to be recovered, the same shall be paid by the petitioner judgment-debtor. 10. No order as to costs.Revision partly allowed. *******