The main legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the nature of interest awarded, which was determined to be simple interest, not compound interest.

This is an application under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), challenging the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.24/2021 arising out of Title Execution Case No.3/2020 whereby the application so filed by the petitioner who was the judgment debtor was rejected thereby holding inter alia that the calculations so made in the execution application to the tune of Rs.4,73,00,565/- plus the cost awarded in the decree and the costs of the execution have to be paid by the judgment debtor/the petitioner herein.

2. I have heard Mr. D Mozumder, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. RK Bhatra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. DK Mishra, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The issue involved in the instant application is as to what interest the decree holder/the respondent herein would be entitled to and what would be the actual amount which is required to be paid by the judgment debtor for the purpose of satisfaction of the decree as it presently stands. For the purpose of deciding the same, it is relevant to take note of certain factual aspects which led to the filing of the instant petition.

4. The respondent herein is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The respondent was running a veneer and saw mill situated at Dihingiagaon P.O: Silonijan under Bokajan Police Station in the District of Karbi Anglong. The respondent had taken an insurance policy in respect to its mill premises. On 22.03.2001 at 00.30 hrs, a fire broke in, wherein as per the respondent, all the logs lying in the open, excepting one log was completely destroyed. The judgment debtor was informed, as alleged in the statement made in the plaint, on 23.03.2001. This aspect was duly acknowledged by the letter dated 26.03.2001 by the defendant No.3 in the suit (an official of the judgment debtor). It may be relevant to mention here that on 23.03.2001, the surveyor so appointed by the petitioner herein had visited the place, took photographs, examined witnesses and obtained various clarifications and documents. Subsequent thereto, the surveyor made various queries with the respondent herein and thereupon no steps was taken for the purpose of releasing the due claims of the respondent, for which a suit was filed by the respondent before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Golaghat claiming an amount of Rs.2,26,75,388/-; future interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till full and final recovery; cost of the suit and for other relief and reliefs.

5. In Schedule A to the plaint, the respondent as plaintiff gave details as to how it assessed the value of the destroyed logs, which was quantified at Rs.1,67,33,986/- by taking into consideration the size of the logs in cum and then multiplying each cum of logs @ Rs.5,300/- per cum. In Schedule B to the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent herein gave details as to on what basis the plaintiff/respondent herein claimed a decree for Rs.2,26,75,388/-. It is pertinent to mention herein that in Schedule B to the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent herein claimed interest @ 18% per annum from 22.03.2001 till 13.03.2003 i.e. the period from the date of fire till the date of filing of the suit. The said suit was registered and numbered as Money Suit No.09/2003. The defendants in the said suit, filed their written statement, denying any liability on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as 15 issues were framed. For the purpose of the adjudication of the instant proceedings, the issue No. xii, xiv and xv being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow:

xii. Whether the defendants are liable for payment of interest for non-settling the plaintiff’s claim and/or for non-payment of plaintiff dues in time?

xiv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

xv. To what other relief/reliefs th