CR No.5518 of 2015

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.5518 of 2015

Date of decision: 27.08.2015

Nirmal Singh

... Petitioner

Vs.

Prahlad Singh

... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to

see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:-

Mr. Sunny K.Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL

J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order

dated

25.05.2015

(Annexure

P-5),

whereby,

the

objections/application under Section 30 of Punjab Relief of

Indebtedness Act, 1934 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the

judgment debtor, has been dismissed.

Mr. Sunny K. Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that trial Court decreed the

suit and the respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to recover the

amount of `1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the

date of execution of the pronote, i.e, 09.04.1997 till realization. He

further submits that as per Section 30 of the aforementioned Act, the

Court cannot pass, much less, execute the decree more than double

the amount borrowed, therefore, erroneously, the aforementioned

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN

2015.09.03 15:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

CR No.5518 of 2015

2

application has been dismissed, thus, the impugned order suffers

from illegality, infirmity, much less, perversity.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

appraised the paper book.

Section 30 of the aforementioned Act, deals with the

applicability of law of damdupt, law of damdupt deals with interest on

interest. Decree is for a sum of `1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9%

per annum from the date of execution of the pronote executed in the

year 1997 till realization. Admittedly, the decree has attained finality

and the appeal filed against the same has been dismissed. Judgment

debtor has delayed the payment of decreetal amount and interest @

9% per annum (simple) awarded by the trial Court is being

accumulated over the passage of time and obviously, it would keep

on accumulating till the decreetal amount is not realized. The

contention that the provisions of Section 30 of the aforementioned

Act, ibid, would come to the rescue of the judgment debtor is not only

fallacious, but in fact, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the

reason that decree is not against the provisions of Section 30 of the

aforementioned Act.

There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order.

In view of aforementioned reasons, the revision petition

stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)

JUDGE

August 27, 2015

savita

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN

2015.09.03 15:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh