U.Co bank vs Nazibulumarand Ors.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.2.1991 passed by the Assistant District Juge, Dhubri, in Money Suit No.4of 1986.

The defendantrespondents took loan from the plaintiffappellant amounting to Rs.2,11,000.00 and defendantrespondents paid only Rs.50,000. However, they did not pay the entire amount as per agreement. Situated thus, the appellantplaintiff filed the suit for realisation of Rs.3,37,566.10 with interest @ Rs.13.85 PA from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount and cost of the suit.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit partly and directed that the plaintiff is entitled to claim simple interest @ Rs. 13.85 PA on the principal amount due till the date of filing of the suit. Besides, the trial Court allowed the defendant to deposit the decretal money with the plaintiff/ appellant by 25 (twenty five) equal instalments quarterly. However, the trial Court declined to grant interest from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard Mr. BR Dey, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued before this Court that the trial Court committed manifest error of law by not granting any interest from the date of filing of the suit and cost also was not given. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the question for determination is whether the appellantplaintiff is entitled the interest from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount and whether as of right the plaintiffappellant is entitled to get cost or not. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also considered the submission of the learned counsel Mr. Dey. On going through the papers, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment so far the granting of cost.

However, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Bank practice compound interest is to be granted and also the interest till the date of realisation of the decretal amount should be affpfded, otherwise, the Bank will suffer loss.

We have considered the submission of Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant and we find sufficient force in his contention that the appellant is entitled to get interest till the date of realisation of the decretal amount. We also consider and examine the submission of Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant so far the cost is concerned and we are of the view that it is the discretion of the Court to grant cost or not.

We, therefore, feel that ends of justice will meet if the simple interest is given till realisation of the decretal amount. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal by allowing the appellant to get simple interest till the date of realisation of the decretal amount @ Rs. 13.85 PA. However, the cost is concerned we find that the cost is discretionary as we opine above and, as such, we will not interfere with the order of the learned trial Court so far as the cost is concerned.

The appeal is partly allowed. Here also we do not allow the costs, and thus the parties shall bear their own costs.