Sharma, J. --1. First Appeal U/S 78 has been preferred by the appellants against an order of Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ujjain passed U/S 84-A on 31.5.2006 in Case No. 548/04-05.

2. According to the brief facts of the case, the appellant No. 1 is the borrower of respondent No.2 Bank. The repayment of cash credit sanctioned to the appellant was guaranteed by appellants No.2 and 3. As the loan amount was not repaid and a balance of Rs. 2,83,711/- remained balance on 30.6.2004, the respondent Bank approached Joint Registrar U/S 84-A for obtaining the certificate of award from him. Joint Registrar accordingly through the impugned order has directed the respondent Bank to go for recovery from the movable and immovable properties of the appellants for the an10unt claimed. This appeal has been filed against this order.

3. Learned counsel Shri Meharban Khan appearing for the appellants has mainly disputed the calculation of interest on the amount outstanding. According to him, the interest has been capitalized by the respondent Bank whereas as per law laid down by Hon 'ble apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, 2001 (II) MPJR 392, the interest cannot be capitalized. He further submits that there was no agreement signed by him for capitalizing the interest and as the respondent Bank is at liberty to fix up the rate of interest, according to the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 21.11.2003, the Bank has arbitrarily imposed exorbitant interest on the appellants.

4. Tribunal earlier in its initial order on 1.3.2004 as agreed by the two sides had authorized Shri Virendra Chhada, Chartered Accountant for the proper calculation of interest. A statement has accordingly been submitted before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant did not fully agree with this calculation and accordingly citation from the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court was also provided for him to facilitate his calculation on the basis of the principles laid down by the apex Court.

5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has only disputed the calculation of interest. According to him the interest has been capitalized which is not in consonance with the principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Learned counsel Shri J.P. Yadav appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the Chartered Accountant was authorized with the consent of the two sides by the Tribunal and the appellant can no longer be allowed to dispute the calculation submitted by the Chartered Accountant.

7. For the appreciation of this matter, following paragraph from the judgn1ent of Hon 'ble apex Court Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (supra) is reproduced here-below:

"Held: The English decision and the decisions of this Court and almost all the High Courts of the country have noticed and approved long established banking practice of charging interest at reasonable rates on periodical rests and capitalizing the same on remaining unpaid. Such a practice is prevalent and also recognized in non-banking money lending transactions. Legislature has stepped in from time to time to relieve the debtors from hardship whenever it has found the practice of charging compound interest and its capitalization to be oppressive and hence needing to be curbed.

The practice is permissible, legal and judicially upheld excepting when superseded by legislation. There is nothing wrong in the parties voluntarily entering into transactions, evidence by deeds incorporating covenant or stipulation for payment of compound interest at reasonable rates, and authorizing the creditor to capitalize the interest on remaining unpaid so as to enable interest being charged at the agreed rate of the interest component of the capitalized sum for the succeeding period. Interest once capitalized, sheds its colour of being interest and becomes a part of principal so as to bind the debtor/borrower.

8. It is difficult to understand how learned counsel for the appellant conclu