Judgment 1. The petitioner-bank feeling aggrieved against order dated 23-12-1994 passed by the Executing Court whereby it was held that it was entitled to further interest on the original loan amount of Rs. 5,000/- only has challenged the same by way of the present revision petition. 2. The sole point for consideration in the present revision petition is whether the petitioner-bank is entitled to interest on the suit amount which included the principal amount and interest or on the original loan amount. 3. The respondent-judgement debtor filed an objection in the execution proceedings stating that he had already deposited Rs. 7,000/- on 2-11-1993 and about Rs. 5,000/- was adjusted under Debt Relief Scheme by the bank and as per the law of damdupat no amount more than twice the original loan amount can be recovered. It was further averred that the judgement debtor had borrowed only Rs. 5,000/- and the decree holder had filed execution wrongly calculating the interest. The interest can only be charged on Rs. 5,000/- but the bank has charged compound interest on all costs and other expenses which is not permissible. The other objection taken by the objector was that no final decree has yet been passed and the decree holder has not submitted the statement of account regarding the disputed amount from the date of decree till filing of the execution. 4. The Executing Court held that the decree-holder is entitled to interest on the original loan amount advanced to the judgement debtor amounting to Rs. 5,000/- and the decree holder-bank is entitled to recover further interest at the agreed rate i.e. 14% p.a. to be calculated in simple manner under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Mr. R. S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the Apex court decisions in Corporation Bank V/s. D. S. Gowda and Bank of India V/s. Karnam Ranga Rao, 1994 ISJ (Banking) 594 : (1994 AIR SCW 2721) and Bank of Baroda V/s. (M/s.) Jagannath Pigment and Chem and Ors., 1995 ISJ (Banking) 573 contended that the Executing Court has erroneously directed that the judgement-debtor is liable to pay interest on the original amount of loan and not on the suit amount i.e. the amount of loan advanced to the judgement-debtor along with interest thereon. 6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record carefully. 7. The respondents have not put in appearance to contest the petition. 8. Three Judges bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in Jagannath Pigment and Chem s case approved the view of two Judges Bench decision in Corporation Bank s case (1994 AIR SCW 2721) (supra). In Jagannath Pigment and Chem s case (supra), the sum borrowed by the debtor was Rs. 1,20,675.59 p and the bank after adding the compound interest had filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,66,759.29 p. with interest as it was claimed that the interest accrued and added to the sum borrowed would be the principal sum adjudged on which future interest could be granted under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, on appeal the High Court modified the decree and directed that future interest should be calculated on the sum borrowed i.e. Rs. 1,20,675. 59 p. and not the principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs. 1,66,759.29p. The Apex Court set aside the High Court order and restored the decree passed by the trial Court. 9. The matter relating to interpretation of the liability of the borrower to pay interest on the principal sum to include interest that became merged with the principal sum advanced or principal sum as lent was referred by a three-Judge Bench on 7-5-1996 to the Constitution Bench and the Hon ble Apex Court while affirming the decisions in Corporation Bank and Jagannath Pigment and Chem s cases (supra) in Central Bank of India V/s. Ravindra and others, 2001 (9) JT (SC) 101 :(AIR 2001 SC 3095) held in para 49 that a creditor can charge interest from his debtor on periodical rests and also capitalise the same so as to make it a part of the principal. Such a course can be justified by stipulation in a contract voluntarily entered into between the parties or by a practice or usage well established in the world to which the parties belong. Such practice is to be found already in vogue in the field of banking business. 10. Such a course can be justified by stipulation in a contract voluntarily entered into between the parties or by a practice or usage well established in the world to which the parties belong. Such practice is to be found already in vogue in the field of banking business. 10. Further, the Constitution Bench answered the reference in the following terms :- "(1) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a voluntary contract between the parties and/or an established practice or usage interest on loans and advances may be charged on periodical rests and also capitalised on remaining unpaid. The principal sum actually advanced coupled with the interest on periodical rests so capitalised is capable of being adjudged as principal sum on the date of the suit. (2) The principal sum so adjudged is such principal sum within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on which interest pendente lite and future interest i.e. post-decree interest, at such rate and for such period which the Court may deem fit, may be awarded by the Court. (3) Corporation Bank V/s. H. S. Gowda and Anr., 1994 (7) JT SC 87 : 1994 (5) SCC 213) : (1994 AIR SCW 2721) and Bank of Baroda V/s. Jagannath Pigment and Chem. have been correctly decided." 11. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 23-12-1994 is set aside. 12. As the proceedings were stayed by this Court, the trial Court shall now proceed in accordance with law and dispose of the matter expeditiously.