Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Allahabad Bank (Nationalized Bank) Alopibagh Branch & Others v. Yashoda Devi Bhargava - CIVIL REVISION No. 384 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17274 (6 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 24

Civil Revision No. 384 of 2006

Allahabad Bank, Alopibagh, Allahabad & others Vs. Yashoda Devi Bhargava

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this revision the order of the court below dated 2.9.2006 has been challenged.

The suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages as well as the eviction was decreed by the court below and the revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been preferred against that, which is still pending disposal. In that revision at one point of time some compromise is said to have reached between the parties on the basis of which an order (Annexure-1) was passed by this court on 17.11.2004. In pursuance to that order some amount towards the rent as well as increased rent was to be deposited by the revisionist judgment debtor and that was duly complied with. Later on, the said order (17.11.2004) passed by this court was recalled vide Annexure-2 to the affidavit on 4.3.2005 and the revision has been restored, which is still pending disposal, as already referred to above. After passing of the order of compromise and before its recall a particular sum of amount is shown to have been deposited by the revisionists-Bank in the court. Since the operation of the decree for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages is not stayed in the pending revision, an execution has been preferred by the decree holder-opposite party giving certain calculation of the amount to be recovered from the judgment debtor. Challenging that calculation, an application was given by the Bank before the court below, which has been rejected by the impugned order. In the said order, the executing court has found that the amount deposited by the Bank in pursuance to the order of this court dated 17.11.2004, since could not be withdrawn by the decree holder-opposite party as its disbursement was not duly indicated in the order, she  (decree holder) would be entitled to the interest at the rate awarded in the decree.

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has challenged that aspect of the order passed by the court below.

I do not find any substance in the challenge made by the revisionists relating to the award of interest, which has been claimed by the decree holder (landlady) in her calculation in the executing case.  The amount, which was deposited in pursuance  to the order dated 17.11.2004 of this court, was definitely not disbursed nor it could be disbursed for want of proper directions in that regard from this court. Otherwise also this amount could not be disbursed after the order whereby the deposit was made, was subsequently recalled by this court vide order dated 4.3.2005. Thus, in case a particular amount under deposit is not to be given to the decree holder, the accrual of interest thereon would be a natural phenomena under the decree passed by the court. The judgment debtor cannot be said to have right to say that it would not be obliged to give interest to the decree holder of an amount which already stood deposit in the  court. The amount, which will not be legally disbursed to the person by the court, the person entitled to that amount would also be entitled to interest on it in accordance with the terms of the decree. Therefore, if the calculation of the interest has been given by the decree holder before the executive court that calculation has been quite rightly held to be correct under the impugned orders. There is absolutely no occasion for any interference in the same and the revision appears to have absolutely no basis and is hereby dismissed.

It is however provided that the amount, which is available there in the court and is deposited in the present case, in whatsoever manner, shall stand adjusted towards the entire decreetal amount due against the judgment debtor. The decree holder is also held entitled to withdraw that amount.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.