JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Anubhav Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.E.Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. It is admitted that petitioner has obtained agricultural loan for purchase of Tractor of Rs.72,000 and there against he has paid total sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. He said that applying principle of Damdupat, maximum twice of the amount was payable therefore only, 144,000/- can be asked to be paid by petitioner. Since he has already paid Rs.1,25,000/-, therefore, he may be allowed to pay remaining amount and no dues certificate be issued to him. Reliance is place by learned counsel for petitioner on a learned Single Judge judgment of this Court in Chander vs. State of U.P. and others,2007 3 JCLR 355 (All). 3. It is really unfortunate that learned counsel for petitioner has cited a Single Judge judgment in Chander vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) though the aforesaid judgment has been overruled by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Writ - C) No. 644 of 2018, Rao Shiv Nath Singh Memorial Khadi Gramodyog Samiti & Anr. vs. State of U.P. and 5 others decided on 08.01.2018, wherein this Court has categorically said as under : "The judgment of the learned Single Judge, entered in the case of Chander Vs. State of U.P. and another,2007 3 JCLR 355 (All), applying the principle of Damdupat to bank loans does not lay down the correct law and is overruled". 4. The Division Bench has also held that liability to pay interest is governed by agreement executed between the parties and recovery thereof is made in accordance with statutory provision provided under Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and the person, who is bound by agreement, cannot wriggle out from terms of agreement subsequently by claiming that rate of interest agreed in agreement is on higher side. 5. On facts it is not disputed that petitioner tried to compute the amount in his own way applying principle of Damdupat and completely ignored terms of agreement. Since it is admitted position that petitioner has defaulted in repayment of loan, this Court find no reason to interfere in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.