Dismissed

Nathi Ram v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2012CR/3227/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision No.3227 of 2012, this court dismissed a petition challenging an executing court order. The petitioner argued high interest on an agricultural loan violated statutory limits and sought refund of excess payments. The court held Section 34 CPC did not apply to mortgage suits, the decree adjudicated dues, and no evidence supported the claim of payment without adjustment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of the executing court upheld.

Nathi Ram Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION NO.3227 OF 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 24th MAY 2012

Nathi Ram

…. Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank & others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. G. C. Shahapuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.13965-CII of 2012

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

CR No.3227 of 2012

¶16

Nathi Ram-judgment debtor No.2 (JD No.2) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 20.04.2012 Annexure P-11 passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar thereby dismissing the objections preferred by the petitioner in execution petition which has been instituted by respondent No.1-Punjab National Bank - decree holder (DH) against petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 6.

¶17

Suit filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 6 (including their predecessor) stands decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2000 Annexure P-3 to the following effect:

¶18

CR No.3227 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

“In view of my discussion over all the issues, the suit of the plaintiff hereby succeeds and is decreed with costs. The payment made by the defendants from time to time to the plaintiff bank will be subject to adjustment and the rate of interest will also adjustable subject to payment made by the defendants as per bank rules. In case the defendants fail to make the payment of balance amount along with rate of interest and other incidental charges within 6 moths, then the plaintiff bank shall be at liberty to apply for final decree i.e. at liberty to apply for the sale of mortgaged property to the defendants. The plaintiff bank will prepare the fresh statement of account within 7 days from today and the period of six months will be start on expiry of 7 days of period. This decree is passed jointly and severally against all the defendants. The agreed rate of interest i.e. 12.5% will be chargeable from the date of obtaining of loan till the first default and thereafter the rate of interest will be 14.5% p.a. with half yearly rests till realization of decreetal amount. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room.”

¶21

Respondent No.1 filed execution petition for execution of

¶22

the decree. In the execution petition, judgment debtor No.2-petitioner herein filed objections alleging that the judgment debtors have already paid more than double the original loan amount and, therefore, DH has no right to recover any further amount in view of directions of Central Government and Reserve Bank of India (RBI). It was also pleaded that interest at the rate of more than 6% per annum cannot be charged as the

¶23

CR No.3227 of 2012 (O&M)

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

loan was agricultural loan. The petitioner also pleaded that the decree holder has not deducted or adjusted the amount already paid by the judgment debtors.

¶26

The objections were controverted by the DH.

¶27

Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P- 11 dismissed the objections. Feeling aggrieved, objector-JD No.2 has filed this revision petition.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Smt.Chitrarekha versus Virendra Kumar Sharma & another reported as 2009(5)RCR (Civil) 356 and judgment of this Court in case of Gurdip Singh and other versus Bank of India reported as 2009(2) RCR (Civil), 461 , contended that objection regarding rate of interest in excess of 6% per annum being in violation of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) can also be raised in exemption petition. It was contended on the basis of aforesaid judgments as well as judgment of Madras High Court in case of C. Narayana Reddi versus State Bank of India reported as 2005(2) ISJ (Banking) 289 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of India versus Dwarkaemdra Pratap Singh and another reported as 1998 ISJ (Banking) 638 that on agricultural loan, future interest exceeding 6% per annum cannot be awarded in view of Section 34 CPC.

¶30

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. Suit filed by respondent No.1 was based on

¶31

CR No.3227 of 2012 (O&M)

¶32

- 4 -

¶33

mortgage. Consequently Section 34 CPC is not applicable. In the case of mortgage suit, interest at agreed rate has to be allowed in view of order 34 CPC. Consequently the aforesaid objection cannot be accepted.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner also contended that more than double of the principal loan amount cannot be recovered. However, this contention also cannot be accepted because no such direction of Central Government or RBI, on the basis of which this contention has been advanced, has been shown to support this contention. Objection of the petitioner that some amounts paid by the JDs have not been adjusted by the DH also cannot be accepted because the decree has finally adjudicated the due amount. Even otherwise, objector-petitioner has failed to show any receipt regarding deposit of any amount which has not been adjusted by the DH.

¶35

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the Executing Court does not suffer from the vice of perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.

¶36

24^th May, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE

Nathi Ram v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathi Ram v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan Kaur Vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr.

Promila Vs Jasvinder Singh

M/S Vijay Kumar Mahesh Kumar Const. Co. Vs Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Ors.

Joginder Singh and Another Vs Jaswinder Singh and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs Om Parkash