Skip to content


Rangpur Raiyat Bank Ltd. Vs. Hesabuddin - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Cal111
AppellantRangpur Raiyat Bank Ltd.
RespondentHesabuddin
Cases Referred(Ramaraya Shanbogue v. S. Venkataramanayya
Excerpt:
- suhrawardy, j.1. the petitioner obtained a decree against the opposite party to the following effect:plaintiff will get from defendant with interest at six per cent per annum the costs rs. 22-10-0 in three months from data and rs. 142-5-6 equally in the next five kartics, any two consecutive defaults making the entire balance due.2. according to the petitioner the defendant did not pay the costs and the instalments as directed by the decree; and ho accordingly put the decree into execution. when it was discovered that the instalments had been paid into court by the defendant in accordance with the terms of the decree and that the decree had stood satisfied at the data of the execution, the petitioner claimed that he ought to have bean given notice of the deposits in court and that as he.....
Judgment:

Suhrawardy, J.

1. The petitioner obtained a decree against the opposite party to the following effect:

Plaintiff will get from defendant with interest at six per cent per annum the costs Rs. 22-10-0 in three months from data and Rs. 142-5-6 equally in the next five Kartics, any two consecutive defaults making the entire balance due.

2. According to the petitioner the defendant did not pay the costs and the instalments as directed by the decree; and ho accordingly put the decree into execution. When it was discovered that the instalments had been paid into Court by the defendant in accordance with the terms of the decree and that the decree had stood satisfied at the data of the execution, the petitioner claimed that he ought to have bean given notice of the deposits in Court and that as he had no notice of the deposits, be was entitled to the coats of execution and interest. The learned Munsif rejected his claim on the ground that ha was not entitled to interest under Order 21, B. 1 (c), Civil P.C. This Rule is directed against that order.

3. On the facts placed before me by the petitioner, the opposite party not appearing, it does not seem that the view taken by the learned Munsif that the matter comes under Order 21, B. 1 (c), Civil P. C, is right. The deposits were apparently made under Order 21, B. 1 (a), Order 21, B. 1 says:

All money payable under a decree shall be paid in throe ways: (a) into Court whose duty it is to execute the decree; (b) out of Court to the decree-holder; or (c) otherwise as the Court which made the decree directs.

4. I have quoted the decree and it does not appear that any special direction was given there as to the mode of payment. The payment made by the opposite party was under Order 21, B. 1 (a). There is authority for the view that interest runs in respect of a decree debt deposited in Court until the decree-holder gets notice of the deposit: (Ramaraya Shanbogue v. S. Venkataramanayya) [1919] 42 Mad. 576. On the same reasoning the decree-holder must be en titled in the absence of notice to the costs of execution which he bona fide took out.

5. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the matter will go back to the Munsif to give proper relief to the plaintiff. There will be no order as to costs of this Rule.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //