ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed in C.T.A.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the 1st respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,98,000/- from the petitioner with interest at the rate 18% per annum, and in case of default, additional 3% interest from the date of default till the date of realization. Due to default of the 1st respondent, the petitioner had initiated Arbitration proceedings before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cheyyar, which ultimately culminated into an award of Rs.14,35,384/- with interest at the rate of 21% by an order dated 20.12.2001. As against the said order, the 1st respondent filed C.T.A.No.2 of 2018 before the Co-operative Special Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The Co-operative Tribunal after hearing the submissions made on either side modified the award as Rs.14,82,686/- by fixing the principle amount as Rs.9,82,686/- and the interest amount as Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Co-operative Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13266 of 2019 before this Court. The said petition was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the order. Thereafter, the Co-operative Special Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Tiruvannamalai has considered the matter afresh and partly allowed the same by passing an award of Rs.9,82,686/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 21.12.1998 to 20.12.2001 and 6% from 20.12.2001 till the date of realization. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal in C.T.A.No.2 of 2018 is against law and without Jurisdiction. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to see any contract is a mutual agreement between the parties and no 3rd party can alter or sub track any contractual obligation. He also submitted that Section 34 of CPC clearly says that the Civil Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to modify the interest rate on mortgage deeds. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to see any contract is a mutual agreement between the parties and no 3rd party can alter or sub track any contractual obligation. He also submitted that Section 34 of CPC clearly says that the Civil Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to modify the interest rate on mortgage deeds. Once a person agrees to pay the interest at a stipulated rate, the Court will have to decree only on the stipulated rate of interest on the principal. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner bank has borrowed money from the Apex Bank at the rate of 16% interest per annum and the 1st respondent has obtained loan from the petitioner at the rate of 18% interest per annum. If the interest is reduced, the bank will suffer huge loss and hardship. Hence, he sought for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the 1st respondent/party-in-person, and perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner bank had lent a sum of Rs.9,98,000/- to the 1st respondent with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the year 1998 and in case of default by the 1st respondent/borrower additional 3% interest to be paid by him as per the agreement made with the petitioner. However, the 1st respondent had committed default in payment of loan obtained from the petitioner. Hence the petitioner had initiated Arbitration proceedings before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar on 20.12.2001. The Deputy Registrar by order dated 20.12.2001 directed the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.14,35,337/- with interest at the rate of 21% from 21.12.2001 till the date of realization. 7. It is further seen that aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cheyyar, the 1st respondent/borrower preferred an appeal before the Cooperative Special Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The Cooperative Tribunal after hearing the parties modified the award as Rs.14,82,686/- by fixing the principle as Rs.9,82,686/- and the interest as Rs.5,00,000/-. As against the said order, the petitioner/lender had filed W.P.No.13266 of 2019 before this Court. The Cooperative Tribunal after hearing the parties modified the award as Rs.14,82,686/- by fixing the principle as Rs.9,82,686/- and the interest as Rs.5,00,000/-. As against the said order, the petitioner/lender had filed W.P.No.13266 of 2019 before this Court. This Court by order dated 23.07.2019 remanded the matter back to the Co-operative Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai for fresh consideration on the ground that the Cooperative Tribunal has not given any reason as to how he had calculated the interest Rs.5,00,000/- for the principle amount of Rs.9,82,686/-. It is moreover seen that as per the order of this Court, the Cooperative Tribunal has reconsidered the matter on 26.11.2019, and the said appeal was partly allowed by passing an award of Rs.9,82,686/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 21.12.1998 to 20.12.2001 and 6% from 20.12.2001 till the date of realization. 8. On going through the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, the petitioner has claimed before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent had obtained loan in the year 1999 by mortgaging his house and till date there is a due of Rs.94,37,575/-. Further, he has claimed that the 1st respondent had mortgaged his house for business purpose. Since he had sustained loss in his business, he could not settle the dues and now he is ready and willing to settle the same as he has obtained some money by way of executing an agreement with the third party for the sale of his house. Moreover, the petitioner has claimed that though the 1st respondent was given concession for several times, he had not come forward to settle the dues and therefore he is liable to pay all the debts to the petitioner. The 1st respondent/borrower has admitted his liability before the Tribunal and claimed that the sum of Rs.2,66,742/- paid towards loan was not taken into account and given credit to his loan account. 9. The Cooperative Tribunal after hearing the submissions made on either side held that the 1st respondent is a Senior Citizen and also a Heart Patient. The interest imputed on the loan obtained by him is very much on higher side. The 1st respondent had approached the higher authorities of the petitioner bank to reduce the interest, but he was informed that the interest cannot be reduced as per the terms and conditions of the Reserve Bank of India. The interest imputed on the loan obtained by him is very much on higher side. The 1st respondent had approached the higher authorities of the petitioner bank to reduce the interest, but he was informed that the interest cannot be reduced as per the terms and conditions of the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the Cooperative Tribunal has held that the petitioner bank was formed for the benefit of the people. Hence it should not collect more interest from the people and it should collect the interest as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. When the 1st respondent states that he is ready and willing to settle all the principle amount, the interest amount can be reduced slightly and collected. Hence, the Cooperative Tribunal has directed the 1st respondent/borrower to pay the principle amount Rs.9,82,686/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 21.12.1998 to 20.12.2001 and 6% from 20.12.2001 till the date of realization. 10. The order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal is liable to be set aside for the reason that the 1st respondent had obtained loan Rs.9,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since he had committed default in payment of loan, he was imputed additional 3% interest as per the agreement made with the petitioner. Further, the 21% interest is fixed as per the Circular issued by the Cooperative Department in RC.No.184981/96CBP1(2) dated 03.02.1997. Hence it cannot be reduced by the Court below. The bank itself has borrowed money from the Apex Bank at the rate of 16% interest. While that being so, the Court below cannot reduce the interest below than that of the 16%, and If do so, the bank will suffer huge loss as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the award of Rs.14,35,384/- was passed in the year 2001 and till 2018 the said amount was not paid by the 1st respondent and he had protracted the proceedings for almost 17 years without settling the dues. Hence this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent is liable to pay the said amount Rs.14,35,384/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 21.12.2001 till the date of realization. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.