B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff/decree holder 45 against the Order dated 6-8-1993 dismissing the petition filed under order XXXIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner herein having obtained the preliminary decree in O. S. No. 33/89 filed I. A. No. 1104/91 praying to pass final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and to direct to bring the petition schedule properties to sale for realisation of the decretal amount in the suit, in pursuance of the preliminary decree dated 16-1-1991.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 33/89 basing on a simple mortgage and the trial Court passed preliminary decree on 16-1-1991 by granting six months time to the respondents/defendants for redemption of mortgage property under the said decree. The respondents/defendants failed to pay any amount whatsoever to satisfy the decree. The petitioner left with no other alternative and in order to realise the decretal amount filed the application to pass final decree and to bring the mortgage property for sale and for realisation of the decretal amount.

( 3 ) THE second respondent alone filed a counter and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed a Memo adopting the counter of the second respondent. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte. In the counter-affidavit the respondents took a plea that the principal amount borrowed was Rs. 16,400. 00 and the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 21, 712. 20 including interest. It is their case that the interest is more than the principal amount and as such the interest over and above and beyond the principal amount is not payable and the Court cannot pass such a decree for recovery of the amount, where the interest is higher than the principal amount. The interest claimed, according to them, is usurious and excessive and the decretal amount is required to be reduced and in such a manner that the interest does not exceed the principal amount borrowed by them.

( 4 ) NO evidence whatsoever was let in by any of the parties. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is claiming the amount towards interest more than the principal amount and the claim is hit by the Rule of "damdupat". Consequently the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without granting any relief.

( 5 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition, Sri. Mannava Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rule of Damdupat has no application whatsoever to any of the transactions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that its application is restricted to the City of Calcutta and the presidency of Bombay. It is submitted that the Rule of Damdupat as envisaged under the ancient Hindu Law is not at all applicable in respect of the transactions by the Banking company. It is submitted that Section 25-A of the Banking Companies Regulations Act (sic. Section 21-A of the Banking regulation Act) provides that notwithstanding in any other law the Bank is entitled to the agreed rate of interest as modified from time to time, in accordance with the rules of the Reserve Bank of India. It is further submitted that at any rate the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-Bank in its entirety and, at least, the petitioner is entitled for the principal amount and the interest equal to that of the principal amount.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the trial Court by submitting that the Rule of Damdupat is an equitable rule and is applicable even in respect of the transactions of the Banking company.

( 7 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition is as to whether the Rule of Damdupat as envisaged under ancient 10 hindu Law is applicable to any monetary transaction within the State of andhra Pradesh? Whether the Rule is applicable even in the transactions of Banking Compa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document