Dismissed

Samarjeet Singh v. Santosh Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WP227/1209/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226/227 seeking modification of impugned orders directing payment of decretal amount with simple interest. The petitioner contended that the decree should have mandated compound interest. The Court observed that the decree explicitly stipulated simple interest only and found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court's calculation, thereby dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Samarjeet Singh Vs Santosh Agrawal — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010360152026

NAFR

Digitally signed INDRAJEET by INDRAJEETSAHU SAHU Date: 2026.09.18 10:06:07 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 1209 of 2026

¶7

1 - Samarjeet Singh S/o Late Ajit Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o C/o Behind Of Gandhiganj M. G. Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Santosh Agrawal S/o Late Baijnath Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o M. G. Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt, Poonam Devi Agrawal W/o Late Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 43 Years Both Are R/o M G. Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tanmay Agrawal S/o Late Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 18 Years R/o M G. Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pankaj Agrawal S/o Late Baijanath Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o M G. Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt, Lata Agrawal W/o Shyamlal Agrawal Aged About 49 Years Both Are R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, Tehsil Bodla, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt, Sarita Agrawal W/o Mukesh Aged About 43 Years R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, Tehsil Bodla, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt, Madhu Agrawal W/o Sanjay Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 8 - Smt, Uma, Agrawal W/o Praveen Kumar Agrawal Pradhan Para, Behind of Radhakrishna Mandir, Shakti Nagar Sambalpur Tehsil And District Sambalpur Orrisa,

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Shri Aman Ansari, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

17.09.2026

¶18

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated 25.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 whereby the executing court has calculated the interest on decreetal amount on simple interest mode and has closed the execution proceeding.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a decree has been passed in favour of petitioner in Civil Suit No.19-A/1987 on 26.11.1992 whereby the plaintiffs including the present petitioner were held entitled for refund of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 12 percent per annum from 05.09.1983 till its payment, Rs.6000/-along with interest @ 12 percent per annum from 16.04.1984 till its realization and amount of Rs.6000/-along with interest @ 12 percent per annum from 28.07.1984 till its realization. Though the said decree has been affirmed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the interest over the said decreetal amount have not been properly calculated on the basis of compound interest, but it has been calculated on simple interest by the trial court. He would further submit that though the petitioner claimed compound interest in the suit, however, the trial court has not made any direction with respect to mode of calculation of interest. Therefore, the impugned orders directing the judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount along with simple interest is erroneous and the same is liable to be modified.

¶20

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶21

¶22

4. From perusal of decree dated 26.11.1992 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No.19-A/1987 it transpires that the decreetal amount was directed to be paid to the plaintiffs along with interest @ 12 percent from the respective dates. There is no direction in the decree that the decreetal amount should be paid with compound interest. It is necessary to note here the relevant part of the decree dated 26.11.1992 which reads as under :

¶23

“It is ordered and decreed that: lafonk dh fofufnZ”V iwfrZ dk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh :i;s 24000@& oknhx.kksa dks vnk djsxkA rFkk 05-09-1983 ls 12 izfr’kr dh nj ls vnk;xh rkjh[k rd] 6000@&:i;s ij fnukad 16-04-1984 ls vnk;xh rkjh[k rd rFkk ‘ks”k 6000@&ij 2808-1984 ls vnk;xh dh rkjh[k rd 12 izfr’kr dh nj ls C;kt vnk djus ds fy, mRRkjnk;h gSA vr% bl vk’k; dh fMdzh izfroknh ds fo:) ikfjr dh tkrh gSA”

¶24

5. From perusal of said part of the decree it does not appear that the interest was ordered to be calculated on compound interest rate, but it was the simple interest as has been awarded to the plaintiffs by the said decree. From perusal of impugned orders dated 25.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 it further transpires that the trial court has rightly calculated the interest over the decreetal amount on simple interest @ 12 percent per annum. The calculation made by the trial court in its order dated 25.04.2026 is as under:

¶25

“इस न्या�या�लया द्वा�रा� दि�नाँ��क 26/12/1992 क� पा�रिरात निनाँर्ण�या क� अनाँ�स�रा वा��गर्ण क� मू�लधनाँ ₹24,000/- दि�ल�या� है! तथा� ₹12,000/- पारा दि�नाँ��क 05/09/1983 स� 12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ब्या�ज, 6,000/- ₹ पारा दि�नाँ��क 16/04/1984 स� 12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ब्या�ज, 6,000/- ₹ पारा दि�नाँ��क 28/07/1984 स� 12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ब्या�ज एवा* अनाँ�पा�नितक व् य दि�ल�या� ज�नाँ� क� आ��श दि�या� है!, जिजसक& गर्णनाँ� निनाँम्नाँ�नाँ�स�रा है�त0 है!1-

¶26

01- मू�लधनाँ ₹12,000/- + ब्या�ज ₹61,920/- (12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ₹1440/प्रनितवा$� 43 वा$� क� वा$� 1983 स� 2026)

¶27

02- मू�लधनाँ ₹6,000/- + ब्या�ज ₹30,240/- (12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ₹720/प्रनितवा$� 42 वा$� क� दि�नाँ��क 16/04/1984 स� वा$� 2026 तक)

¶28

¶29

03- मू�लधनाँ ₹6,000/- + ब्या�ज ₹30,240/- (12% वा�र्षि$%क क& �रा स� ₹720/प्रनितवा$� 42 वा$� क� दि�नाँ��क 28/07/1984 स� वा$� 2026 तक) 04- आज्ञप्ति5त क� अनाँ�स�रा अनाँ�पा�नितक वा�� व् य ₹3,840.25 इस तराहै वा��गर्ण मू�लधनाँ ₹24,000/- ब्या�ज 1,22,400/-( ₹ 61,920/-+ ₹ 30,240/-+ ₹ 30,240/-) एवा वा�� व् य ₹3,840.25 क�ल ₹3,840.25 क�ल ₹150240.25 है�त� है!।

¶30

निनाँर्ण�तऋर्ण0 द्वा�रा� अपानाँ� आ��श 21 निनाँयामू 23 व्य०प्र०स० क� आवा � नाँ मू9 क�ल रा�शिश ₹1,48,880/- है�नाँ� बत�या� गया� है!, ज� उशि=त नाँहै> है!, इसशिलए निनाँर्ण?तऋर्ण0गर्ण क& ओरा स� प्रस्त�त आ��श 21 निनाँयामू 23 व्य०प्र०स० क� आवा � नाँ आ*शिशक रूपा स� स्वा0क�रा निकया� ज�त� है!, आज्ञप्ति5तध�रा0 निनाँर्ण?तऋर्ण0 स� व्यवाहै�रा वा�� क्रमू�क 19 अ/1987 मू9 पा�रिरात निनाँर्ण�या क� अनाँ�स�रा उपारा�क्त�नाँ�स�रा क�ल ₹1,50,240.25 प्र�5त करानाँ� क� अधिधक�रा0 हैF, वात�मू�नाँ प्रकरार्ण मू9 निनाँर्ण�या एवा आज्ञप्ति5त वा$� 1992 क& है!, इसशिलए निनाँर्ण?तऋर्ण0गर्ण उक्त रा�शिश श0घ्रत�श0घ्र आज्ञप्ति5तध�रा0गर्ण क� अ�� करा9ग� ।”

¶31

6. Thus, in view of the contents of the decree as well as calculation of the trial court, this court does not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in calculating the interest over the decreetal amount. The orders passed by the trial court is just and proper and needs no interference.

¶32

7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶33

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶34

inder

Samarjeet Singh v. Santosh Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Samarjeet Singh v. Santosh Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases