ORDER 1. This appeal is against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 28-10-1996. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The respondents were debtors of the appellant Bank. The appellant Bank filed a suit for recovery of its debt. Pending that suit, the parties arrived at an agreement dated 11-7-1983. The decision of this matter depends on the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the terms of the agreement shall be set out in detail a little later. The appellant Bank filed a second suit for enforcement of this agreement. That suit came to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by its judgment dated 27-6-1996 dismissed the claim of the appellant Bank on the ground that under the agreement the appellant Bank had taken jewellery in full and final settlement of all its claims. It was also held that the first suit having been withdrawn without leave to file another suit, the second suit was barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The appeal filed by the appellant Bank has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment it is recognised that a second suit would be maintainable. However, the Appellate Tribunal also comes to d the conclusion that under the agreement the precious stones were handed over in full and final settlement of all the dues of the appellant Bank and that, therefore, the second suit was not maintainable. 4. At this stage it becomes necessary to see the terms of the agreement dated 11-7-1983. The agreement first recites that a suit had already been filed. It then sets out what are the amounts due and what are the amounts paid back. Thereafter, the relevant recitals read as follows: "AND WHEREAS, the firm admits that a sum of Rs 58.07 lakhs as per details given above is due and payable to the Bank as on the date of the agreement and whereas the parties have mutually arrived at outside-court settlement and the firm has handed over precious stones as mentioned in the schedule annexed to the Bank and the parties are desirous of recording the settlement in writing. Now, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Bank shall allow a lump sum remission of Rs 5 lakhs towards interest charged in the account. 2. Now, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Bank shall allow a lump sum remission of Rs 5 lakhs towards interest charged in the account. 2. That after the execution of these presents, the Bank shall not charge any further interest in the account. 3. That the stocks of precious stones as per the schedule annexed which are free from encumbrances and lawfully owned by the firm and in respect of which the firm has absolute powers of disposal have already been got examined and valued by the approved valuer and delivered to the Bank as security towards the outstanding dues amounting to Rs 53.07 lakhs. 4. That the firm hereby undertakes to arrange disposal of the stocks so delivered to the Bank within a period of six months failing which the Bank shall have the full authority to dispose of the goods a either through private treaty or by public auction in their sole discretion and appropriate the proceeds thereof against the Banks dues amounting to Rs 53.07 lakhs. That simultaneously with the execution of these presents and the execution and completion of all necessary documents as may be required by the Bank, the Bank and the firm shall file a compromise b deed on the lines suggested above in the court." (emphasis supplied) 5. A plain reading of this agreement shows that the respondents have admitted that a sum of Rs 58.07 lakhs was due and payable to the appellant c Bank on the date of the agreement. It shows that some precious stones have been handed over. It then recites that the appellant Bank has allowed a lump sum remission of Rs 5 lakhs towards interest. It then recites (in clause 2) that the appellant Bank shall not charge any further interest. Clause 3 states that the precious stones have been delivered as "security towards the outstanding dues amounting to Rs 53.07 lakhs". Thus, it is clear that the precious stones d have merely been handed over as security. They are not handed over in full and final settlement of the dues of the appellant Bank. The fact that the precious stones are handed over merely as a security and not in full and final settlement of dues of the appellant Bank is also clear from a perusal of clause 2 which provides that the appellant Bank is not to charge any further interest. The fact that the precious stones are handed over merely as a security and not in full and final settlement of dues of the appellant Bank is also clear from a perusal of clause 2 which provides that the appellant Bank is not to charge any further interest. If the debt was being wiped out, then there would have been no need to e provide that the appellant Bank will not charge any further interest in this account. 6. It is strenuously urged that clause 4 of this agreement clearly indicates that the precious stones were handed over to the appellant Bank in lieu of debt. It is submitted that by virtue of clause 4 the only remedy of the appellant Bank was to recover its dues by sale of the precious stones. We are f unable to accept this submission. Clause 4 mentions that the respondents undertake to arrange disposal of the stocks so delivered to the appellant Bank within a period of six months failing which the appellant Bank shall have the full authority to dispose of the goods. If the appellant Bank had become the owner of the goods i.e. if title had passed to them, they did not require authority to dispose of the goods. Under clause 4, if the respondents did not sell within a period of six months, then the appellant Bank has been given authority to sell either by private treaty or by public auction. But this is nothing more than the right which is given to a pledgee under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act. This is clear from the fact that clause 4 provides that the sale proceeds are to be appropriated towards the claim of the appellant Bank amounting to Rs 53.07 lakhs. If the precious stones were being given in h full and final settlement then there was no question of appropriation after sale. Appropriation after sale can only arise if the debt still remains. The sale is only towards satisfaction of that debt. 7. It was next urged that the second suit is nothing else but a suit to recover the original debt. It was submitted that the sum of Rs 53.07 lakhs is nothing but a part of the original debt which was due to the appellant Bank. The sale is only towards satisfaction of that debt. 7. It was next urged that the second suit is nothing else but a suit to recover the original debt. It was submitted that the sum of Rs 53.07 lakhs is nothing but a part of the original debt which was due to the appellant Bank. Reliance was placed upon the authority in the case of L. Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta lyer1 wherein it has been laid down that the Court must look at the substance of the plaint. Relying on this authority it was submitted that if the substance of the plaint is looked at, it will be clear that the suit is for recovery of the original debt. It was submitted that a second suit for recovery of the original debt was barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. We have carefully looked at the plaint. It is clear that the suit is not for recovery of the original debt. The suit is for enforcement of the agreement dated 11-7-1983. When this agreement was entered into, there was a fresh contract between the parties. The debt mentioned in this agreement is now due by virtue of this agreement. The suit based on this agreement was maintainable. As stated above, this has been noticed by the Appellate Tribunal. The suit based on such an agreement could not have been dismissed by virtue of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code which has no application to such a case. 9. In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. It would not be denied that under the agreement Rs 53.07 lakhs is payable. The suit based on the agreement should have been decreed for the sum of Rs 53.07 lakhs. Of course, the appellants have also claimed interest. By adding interest they have claimed a sum of Rs 68,80,779.60. As the suit is based on the agreement, the appellant Bank is also bound by the terms of the agreement. As noted above, clause 2 of the agreement clearly states that from the date of the agreement the appellant Bank shall not charge any interest. Therefore, the appellant Bank is not entitled to claim any amount by way of interest. 10. As noted above, clause 2 of the agreement clearly states that from the date of the agreement the appellant Bank shall not charge any interest. Therefore, the appellant Bank is not entitled to claim any amount by way of interest. 10. It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant Bank, that the appellant Bank had made all efforts to sell the precious stones. It was submitted that the suit was based on the rights under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to claim interest after the period of six months during which the respondents were to sell off the goods. We see no substance in this submission. We have also looked at the record. We find that the findings, recorded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant Bank had made no serious effort to dispose of the goods, are correct. Once the appellant Bank had, by its agreement, agreed not to charge interest and the appellant Bank does not take any step to sell off the goods it would not be entitled to claim interest when it has specifically agreed that no interest will be charged. 11. Accordingly, the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the impugned order are set aside. There will be a decree in favour of the appellant Bank and against the respondents in a sum of Rs 53.07 lakhs. The a respondents are directed to pay the decretal amount with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from today till payment. 12. At the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we permit the respondents to pay the decretal amount in 24 equal monthly instalments. The first of such instalment to be paid on or before 1-5-2004. Each and every subsequent instalment to be paid on or b before the first day of each subsequent month. In case of default of payment of any two instalments, the entire decretal amount or the balance due thereon will become due and payable forthwith and the appellant Bank will be at liberty to execute the decree. 13. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.