The executing court may assess correct amounts owed despite previous orders lacking specific adjudication under financial statutes.

1. The Kerala Financial Corporation obtained an order under S.31 of the State Financial Corporations Act. When proceedings were initiated under S.31 of the Act the same was not objected to by the debtor, petitioners in CRP 2520 of 1994 and the appellants in CMA 138 of 1995.

2. In the application for an order under S.31 of the Act the Financial Corporation did not specifically include the prayer for the compounding of the interest as per the stipulation in the agreement. This resulted in the Court not making a specific order for the compounding of the interest. Subsequently, the Financial Corporation filed E.P. 165 of 1994 for executing the order. In the execution petition we are concerned with a sum of Rs. 13,76,557.15 was claimed by the Kerala Financial Corporation as the balance amount due. The Financial Corporation sought recovery of that amount by sale of the undertaking. At that stage, the debtor filed E. A. 37 of 1994, praying for the issue of a direction to the decree holder, the Kerala Financial Corporation to accept the amount shown in Annexure - I to that petition and to record satisfaction of the earlier order passed under S.31 of the Act. The debtor's stand was that since the earlier order did not provide for the compounding of interest, the Financial Corporation could not claim the amounts due to it on the basis of compounding of interest. In other words, the gist of the contention was that the order passed under S.31 of the Act having already determined the amount due, the Court enforcing that order being the executing court, could not go behind the order and proceed on the basis that the agreement between the parties provided for the compounding of unpaid interest. This claim was opposed by the Financial Corporation which pointed out that going by the transaction between the parties the amount claimed by it in the execution petition was due and since no adjudication as such was involved in an order under S.31 of the Act, there was no bar to the court when approached again, in calculating the correct amount due to the Financial Corporation and providing for its recovery. Before the Court below various decisions were cited. The court below took the view that the court was not passing a decree for realisation of any amount in a proceeding under S.31 of the Act and the quantum if any to be fixed for the purpose of enforcing the debt, should be in terms of the agreement between the debtor and Financial Corporation and if the agreement provided for compounding of interest then the court could not go behind that agreement or order that compound interest need not be paid. In that view the court found that the prayer in E. A. 37 of 1994 could not be granted. Finding that the amount claimed in the statement filed by the Financial Corporation showing the balance as on 27.6.1994 was not objected to, the court found that the said amount was due to the Financial Corporation. It is this order that is challenged in revision by the petitioners in E. A. 37 of 1994.

3. Meanwhile it appears that the debtors had entered into an agreement for sale of the undertaking with one Thomas who is the respondent in C.M. A. 138 of 1995. The said Thomas filed a suit O.S. 3 of 1995 before the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ernakulam praying for specific performance of that agreement for sale. That suit is being resisted by the debtors to the Financial Corporation on various grounds. In that suit, Thomas filed I. A. 15 of 1995 praying for a temporary injunction restraining t