Rajiv Textiles Distributors vs Punjab National Bank

A.S. Nehra, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 1, 1991, passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Faridabad, by which the objections of the petitioner were dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner raised objections stating that the entire decretal amount had been paid and only interest remained to be paid. It was further stated in the objections that the decree holder be directed to file a correct statement of loan account. Reply to the objections was filed. It was pleaded in the reply that the entire decretal amount had not been paid and it was wrongly pleaded by the objector that interest only remained to be paid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that entire decretal amount has been paid and it is the interest only that remains to be paid. It was contended on behalf of the decree-holder before the Senior Sub-Judge that the entire decretal amount had not been paid and more over the amount paid was not to be adjusted only towards the principal amount as the decretal amount also included the interest from the due date till the same was paid.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no force in the petition. The decree-holder is not supposed to adjust the amount paid first towards the principal amount and, thereafter, towards the interest as the judgment debtor did not at any time intimate the bank as to how the money was to be adjusted that is to say whether it was to be adjusted towards the principal amount, interest or costs. Since the decree passed against the petitioner included interest from the due date till the same was paid, therefore, the bank was entitled to adjust the payment towards the interest. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.