Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 524 (PNJ)

Kitabo v. Punjab National Bank

2003-04-09

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2003
ORDER Kiran Anand Lall, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 10.4.1992 of the executing Court dismissing objections filed by the petitioners-judgment-debtors in the execution proceedings of a compromise decree. 2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the date of passing of the decree, the decree-holder (Bank) is not entitled to charge interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the decretal amount and it can charge interest at the rate of 6% only. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgments reported as Siri Chand and another v. Central Bank of India, Yamunanagar, District Ambala and another, (1988-1) 93 PLR 473 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, 2001(3) 20 PLR 837. 3. The decree being executed by the respondent-bank is a compromise decree. Court had not given decision on the merits of the case. The basis of decree was the compromise arrived at between the parties. The suit of the respondent-bank was decreed with costs alongwith interest at the rate of 11 per cent, on the basis of compromise as per which the bank had extended concession of payment of the decretal amount in instalments to the petitioners-judgment-debtors. The first instalment was of Rs. 5000/- (payable on or before 30.6.1987) and the remaining six-monthly instalments were of Rs. 20,000/- each. In case of default in payment of any two consecutive instalments, the bank was to recover the whole of the remaining decretal amount by way of sale of the property of the petitioners which was under mortgage. 4. The two judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioners (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. In those cases, it was the court which had adjudged the decretal amount as there was contest between the parties, whereas the basis of the decree being executed by the respondent-bank is a compromise arrived at between the parties. That being so, the petitioners cannot get any benefit on the basis of what was held in the judgment relied upon on this behalf. The terms of compromise are binding on them and as per those they are liable to pay 11 per cent interest on the decretal amount. 5. As a result of what has been discussed above, the revision is dismissed as being without any merit. Revision dismissed.