1987 Supreme(MP) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.K. ADHIKARI, J.
Anokhilal - Applicant
Vs.
Kailash Chandra - Respondents
C.R. No. 372 of 1986 (J)
Decided On : 16-04-1987

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 20, R. 11 (2) and O. 21 – execution of decree for amount of debt with interest – amount deposited would be applied towards interest first – no distinction between decree for debt or mortgage decree.

        Short Note

       1. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiff/decree – holder against order dated 12 – 2 – 1986 passed by the executing Court during execution of a decree for Rs. 10,000/ – as the principal amount, Rs. 3650/ – towards interest till the date of the passing of the decree and costs of the suit amounting to Rs. 2011.05 p. The claim of the decree – holder was that the decree has not been satisfied and according to him Rs. 3350.54p. still remained towards the satisfaction of the decree.

       Held : In support of his contention, the decree – holder had relied on Meghraj V. Bavabai (AIR 1970 SC 161) wherein it has been held that the normal rule in case of debt due with interest is that any payment made by the debtor is in the first instance to be applied towards satisfaction of the interest and thereafter to the principal. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Mysore High Court in L.I.C. of India v. B.R. Honnappa (AIR 1973 Mys. 86) for the same proposition. According to the judgment debtor/defendant he had satisfied the decree by paying Rs. 18,162/ – in instalments. This contention was accepted by the executing Court. The executing Court dismissed the application filed by the decree – holder/plaintiff distinguishing the cases of Meghraj (supra) and that of L.I.C. of India (supra) on the ground that the cases referred related to mortgage and not to debt taken on interest. In my opinion, the learned executing Court failed to see that the observation made by the Supreme Court relates to the normal rule not necessarily applicable only to cases of mortgage. Since the executing Court has not recorded any finding on the question whether or not Rs. 3350.54p. still remains to be paid by the judgment – debtor to the decree – holder in satisfaction of the decree, the matter is remitted back to it for consideration of the question on merits and pass order in accordance with the provisions of law. AIR 1970 SC 161 and AIR 1973 Mys. 86 relied on. Revision allowed.