JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26/3/2009, whereby, the learned trial court rejected the application under Section 47 of CPC, whereby, the plaintiff decree holder Bank claimed pendente lite interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.L. Khatri submitted that issue no.6 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant borrower and, therefore, the learned Executing Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 47 and directing recovery of the interest during the pendency of the suit for the period 11/9/86 to 12/12/88, when the suit was decreed in favour of the bank. 4. A perusal of the impugned order and decree dated 12/12/88 clearly shows that issue no.6 was framed in negative term as to whether plaintiff Bank is not entitled to receive any interest from 11/9/1986. the said issue having been decided in favour of the plaintiff Bank, which would clearly mean that the plaintiff Bank is not entitled to interest pendente lite during the pendency of the suit and learned Executing Court cannot said to have erred in rejecting the application under Section 47 CPC. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds no force in the present revision petition and same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the opposite side forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******