Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2038 (ALL)

Meera Gupta v. U. P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd.

2016-05-25

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present petition the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Executing Court is under challenge. 3. By means of the said order the application 50-B filed by the petitioner/decree holder for levying compound interest at the current bank rate on the dues of rent has been rejected. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rate of interest has not been fixed by the Court which has passed a decree. The Executing Court, therefore, has proceeded to levy the interest on the balance amount of rent at the rate 12%. The order passed by the Executing Court in proceeding to levy interest was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition no. 10375 of 2015 which was dismissed on 08.09.2015 with the specific observation that the interests levied on the arrears of rent till the date of payment by the Executing Court cannot be doubted, the judgment debtor could not have objected to the levy of interest by the Executing Court. The decree holder has rightly demanded compound interest in view of the bank norms as the judgment debtor did not pay or deposit the rent till the date of occupation of the building and the application 50- B for amendment of execution application could not have been rejected. 5. Dealing with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say that the Executing Court has categorically recorded that the arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 12% have been demanded by the decree holder in the execution application filed by him on 06.01.2011. The records further reflect that the Executing Court has proceeded to pass an order on 28.11.2014 for issuance of recovery certificate for recovery of dues of rent. The recovery certificate was also issued on 20.12.2014. The order dated 28.11.2014 was challenged before this Court and was kept in abeyance by the interim order dated 23.02.2015 with the condition that the petitioner/judgment debtor shall deposit the entire decretal amount of rent with interest before the Executing Court. This petition was finally dismissed on 08.09.2015. 6. This means that on the application moved by the petitioner/decree holder, the Executing Court has applied its mind and proceeded to levy interest, pass an order for recovery in execution of the decree by order dated 28.11.2014. This petition was finally dismissed on 08.09.2015. 6. This means that on the application moved by the petitioner/decree holder, the Executing Court has applied its mind and proceeded to levy interest, pass an order for recovery in execution of the decree by order dated 28.11.2014. After issuance of the recovery certificate on 20.12.2014, there was no justification to accept the prayer of the petitioner to amend the relief sought by him. The Executing Court has already awarded the relief prayed by him. 7. No good ground has been made out to interfere in the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Jhansi in Execution Case No.15 of 2014 (Smt. Meera Gupta v. U.P. Corporation Federation. 8. Dismissed.