The executing court has the authority to determine the applicable interest rate on FDR amounts as per the decree, and a declaratory decree can be executed.

1/ Heard on IA nos. 3608/2024, 3606/2024, 3605/2024, 3611/2024 and 3609/2024, which are the applications filed by the petitioner for taking documents on record. The documents appear to be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, therefore, all the Ias are allowed and the documents are taken on record.

2/ With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.

3/ This order shall govern the disposal of CR Nos.249/2024, 247/2024, 248/2024, 250/2024 & 251/2024 as similar issue is involved in all these matters.

4/ For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in CR No.247/2024 are being taken into consideration. 5/ This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) against the impugned order dated 12.3.2024 passed by the 29th District Judge, Indore in MJC No.311/2024, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2016 passed in Civil Suit no.30-A/204 by the 15th ADJ, Indore, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit and declared that the respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are entitled to get FDR amount as mentioned in Para-1 with the interest as mentioned in Para-2.

6/ Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/decree holders had filed a Civil Suit No.30A/2014 for declaration and operation of certain bank accounts. In the aforesaid civil suit, the petitioner/UCO Bank was also a party as defendant No.1. The suit was finally decreed on 12.02.2016, holding that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 shall be entitled to receive the amount kept in FDR from the date of its maturity as per the Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in their Manual's Chapter – IV, Rule 22 (1) to (5) with interest as provided under law. When the aforesaid decree was put in execution by the plaintiffs, the bank filed its reply in respect of the calculation of interest with details as per the Court order, which is also placed on record and the executing Court, after hearing the parties, has passed the impugned order directing the bank to pay the interest @ 10% per annum on each FDR from the date of their maturity.

7/ During the pendency of the matter petitioner preferred an application under Section 47 of CPC before the trial Court by stating that the impugned decree passed by the trial Court is only a declaratory decree, which cannot be executed. Trial Court has not issued any direction in the said decree for payment of the FDR amounts along with interest. The judgment debtor has already deposited the whole amount, therefore, execution cases are not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

8/ Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by submitting that executing court has determined the rate of interest and the amount of the interest and Bank is required to deposit the amount in every case as per the direction issued by the Court, but the same has not been duly complied with by the petitioner and no amount has been deposited before the Court under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, the application be dismissed with cost. 9/ After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.3.2024 the trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 47 of CPC filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has preferred all these revision petitions.

10/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the executing court are arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to the law, equity and justice and the executing court has decided the issue regarding the rate of interest, which is in overexercise of the jurisdiction as vested in the executing court.

Hence, he prays that the impugned order dated 12.3.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and his application under Section 47 of CPC be allowed.

11/ Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are just, proper and in accordance with law and not deserv