JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. : Appellants and proform a respondents No. 2 to 5 were the defendants in Civil Suit filed by respondent No. l plaintiff for the recovery of Ks. 2,15,410/-, which has been decreed on 28th February, 1996 by the then District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts, at Mandi, for Rs. 51,633.23 paise with simple interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum w.e.f. 20th September, 1994 till the date of payment by the defendants and also with proportionate costs and counsel fee. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The short point argued by learned counsel for the appellant-defendants is that the trial Court has mis-intepreted and mis-applied the interest Subsidy Schemes Annexures R-2 and R-2/A to the present case and has wrongly accepted the version of the plaintiff-bank that the interest subsidy benefit could not be made available to the defendants on 31.3.1992 as Scheme Annexure R-2/A was formulated by the Government of India in September, 1993 and circulated in the end of September, 1993. Learned counsel has taken us through the various clauses of the interest Subsidy Schemes Annexures R-2 and R-2/A and has emphasised that as per sub-clause 3(f) of R-2/A interest after the effective de i.e. 31.3.1992 in the accounts of the borrowers was to be charged as per the instructions/directives on interest rates on advances issued by the Reserve Bank of India and since no amount was due and payable on 31.3.1992 after providing interest subsidy as per the Schemes, which is evident from the statement of accounts mark X and Y when read together no decree could be passed against the appellant-defendants. According to the learned counsel, the District Judge has passed the decree by mechanically accepting the statement of bank Manager Shri D.P. Singh mat an amount of Rs. 51,633.25was due and payable by the defendants on20.9.1994 as per the interest Subsidy Scheme without examining the respective contentions of the parties. His further submission is that the interest benefit under the Scheme was to be awarded to the defendants on31.3.1992, which was the effective date and not on 20.9.1994 by adding the interest at the contractual rate for the period 31.3.1992 to 20.9.1994. 3. His further submission is that the interest benefit under the Scheme was to be awarded to the defendants on31.3.1992, which was the effective date and not on 20.9.1994 by adding the interest at the contractual rate for the period 31.3.1992 to 20.9.1994. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff -bank has argued in support of the impugned decree and judgment that since the said Schemes were formulated by the Government if September, 1993 and circulated thereafter, they were justified to give benefit of interest subsidy on 28.1.1994 and charge contractual interest from 31.3.1992 to 28.1.1994 and thereafter till the date of payment, though, the District Judge has awarded 17,5% simple interest w.e:f. 20.9.1994 till the date of realisation. 4. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant It is not in dispute that, the appellant No. l- firm was granted medium term loan/Cash Credit Facility to the tone of Rs. two lacs on 3.1.1985. Without considering the claim of the defendants for granting them interest subsidy under the Interest Subsidy I Scheme Annexures R-3 to R-l 1 referred to by the District Judge in para-5 of the impugned judgment, the respondent-plaintiff-bank filed Civil Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,15,410/- on 30.9.1993. In their written statement filed on 28.5.1994, the defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as no amount was due and payable by them, if the benefit of Interest Subsidy Scheme to which they were entitled being roit affected borrowers, is given to them, Thereafter, on 6.9.1994 learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff made statement at the Bar that the defendants being roit affected borrowers were entitled to interest subsidy under the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme to the tune of Rs. 1,84,020.63 out of the suit amount which would be reimbursed till 31.3.1992 and the decree for the remaining amount with usual interest be passed in accordance with law. In view of this statement, learned counsel for defendants sought time for instructions from his client There after, on 21.9.1994 the statements of the Manager of respondent-plaintiff bank namely Shri D.P. Singh and one of the partners of appellant No. 1- firm were recorded. In view of this statement, learned counsel for defendants sought time for instructions from his client There after, on 21.9.1994 the statements of the Manager of respondent-plaintiff bank namely Shri D.P. Singh and one of the partners of appellant No. 1- firm were recorded. In this statement Shri D\P. Singh placed on record statement of accounts mark X and Y duly certified by him under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act. He has admitted that had the interest subsidy been adjusted in the account of the defendants on 31.3.1992, they would not have been liable to pay any amount in the suit; but explained that since "the above stated Scheme was formulated by the Government in September, 1993 and circulated in the end of year 1993 the plaintiff-bank is entitled to interest at the contractual rate on the amount of Rs. 1,84,020.63 which was due and payable by the defendants on 31.3.1992, also because the interest subsidy was adjusted by the plaintiff-bank in its books on 28.1.1994 when the amount of Rs. 44,094/- was due and payable by the defendants". According to him the interest charged by the plaintiff-bank as shown in the statement is at the rate of 17.5% simple. In view of the statement of Shri D.P. Singh, the Manager of respondent-bank, one of the defendants namely Narender Pal Singh in his capacity as one of the partners of M/s Jeevan Singh Joginder Singh gave the statement that decree may be passed in the suit in accordance with the Scheme Annexure R-2 and R-2/A. 5. After hearing the case in part this Court directed the defendants to place on-record counter statement of accounts calculating the amount due and payable by them as on 31.3.1992 on the basis of 1% per annum simple interest. Accordingly the statement of account Annexure RA has been placed on record with the affidavit of defendant Narender Pal Singh. Thereafter, before the decree could be passed in the suit, it was transferred to District Judge, Mandi in view of notification No. HHC/Admn./6(24)74-i 1, dated 21.2.1995, who has passed the impugned decree and judgment 6. So far the first interest Subsidy Scheme. Thereafter, before the decree could be passed in the suit, it was transferred to District Judge, Mandi in view of notification No. HHC/Admn./6(24)74-i 1, dated 21.2.1995, who has passed the impugned decree and judgment 6. So far the first interest Subsidy Scheme. Annexure R-2 is concerned, it came into force on 17.9.1990 and as per its clause 3 (a) interest at the rate of 6% per annum was to be charged from the defendants with effect from the date of grant of loan till the effective date, i.e. 31.12.1989 and as per clause 3(e) the interest after the effective date in the accounts of borrowers was to be charged as per the instructions/directives on interest rate on advances issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Clause-7 of this Scheme provides that the entire interest that has accrued on the outstanding loan amounts after the effective date shall be borne by the borrower. 7. Second Scheme, Annexure R-2/A, came into force on 1.9.1993 and the borrowers who were eligible for relief under the Scheme, Annexure R-2, were covered under it. The effective date under this Scheme was 31.3.1992 and the rate of interest was 1% (simple) per annum which was to be charged from the borrowers in deserving cases. Again under Clause 3(f) of the Scheme, Annexures R-2/A, interest after the effective date in the accounts of borrowers was to be charged as per the instructions/directives on interest rate oh advances issued by the Reserve Bank of India and under Clause -7 thereof the entire interest that had accrued on the outstanding loan amounts after the effective date was to be borne by the borrowers. 8. 8. It is not in dispute that the defendants are converted by these Schemes and simple interest at 1% was to be charged from them from the date of grant of loan till 31.3.1992, the effective date as per Annexure R-2/A. It is also not in dispute that had interest subsidy been adjusted in the accounts of defendants on 31.3.1992, the balance due and p ay able by them would have been nil on the effective date as shown in the statement of account, Annexure -RA, placed on record with the affidavit date 23.10.1994 of defendant Narender Pal Singh, in pursuance to the orders dated 5.10.1994 and 21.10.1994 of this Court Even as per the statement mark Y placed on record by Shri D.P. Singh, the Manager of respondent-plaintiff-bank, the balance amount due and payable by the defendants as on 31.3.1992 was Rs. 1,84,020.63, equivalent to the amount of subsidy of Rs. 1,84,020.63 as on 31.3.1992 as shown in statement mark Y. Therefore, by adjusting the subsidy, amount towards the balance amount nothing was due and payable by the defendants to the respondent-plaintiff bank. This was also admitted by Shri D.P. Singh, the Manager of the respondent - plaintiff-bank that since the Scheme was formulated in September, 1993 and circulated to them in the end of the year 1993, they had adjusted the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,84,020.63 on 28.1.1994 by charging the interest over the amount due and payable on 313.1992 till 28.1.1994 and thereafter. The perusal of the Scheme-show that these were given retrospective effect and for charging interest at the usual rate it was to be determined whether any amount was due and payable by the borrowers on 31.3.1992. If no amount is payable on 31.3.1992 as in the present case no interest on the usual rate can be charged from the borrowers. If the respondent-plaintiff-bank is permuted to give the benefit of interest subsidy at any time later to the effective date i.e. 31.3.1992 and charge interest at usual rate from 31.3.1992 till the date the interest subsidy benefit amount is adjusted in the account of the borrower, the very purpose of the Scheme will be defeated. The respondent-plaintiff -bank was duty bound to adjust interest subsidy amount on 31.3.1992 against the balance amount due and payable by the borrower. The respondent-plaintiff -bank was duty bound to adjust interest subsidy amount on 31.3.1992 against the balance amount due and payable by the borrower. If it is done in the present case, no amount .was due and payable by the defendants. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and decree and judgment dated 28.2.1996 passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti at Mandi, is set aside and the suit of the respondent-plaintiff-bank is dismissed. The decretal amount was deposited by the appellant-defendants in this Court which was disbursed to the respondent-plaintiff-bank subject to the condition that if ultimately the appellant-defendants succeed in the appeal it will be refunded to them by the respondent-plaintiff-bank along with simple interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum within a period of one month from the decision of the appeal. Accordingly, the respondent-plaintiff-bank is directed to deposit the amount as per the order dated 23.9.1996 within a period of one month from today. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.