Y.V. Rama Rao vs Pamidimukkala Surya Nagamani

D.S.R. Varma, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili dated 21-7-1998 in O.S. No. 29 of 1993 directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 37,500/- together with interest at 18% p.a.

Plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision.

It is admitted by the learned Counsel appearing for both parties that the amount of Rs. 37,500/- which is said to be balance amount of sale consideration has already been deposited. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration before this Court is with regard to depositing the amount towards interest.

As can be seen from the record made available to this Court, the suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Further the averments made in the plaint at para (3) which prompted the trial Court to pass the order impugned are to the following:

"The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and has been requesting the defendant to execute the requisite sale deed as per the terms of the contract. However the defendant and her husband who is transacting the sale on behalf of the defendant, with the oblique motive to wriggle out of the contractual obligation have demanded interest at 36% over the unpaid sale consideration. Even though the demand for interest is not covered by the terms of the suit contract and also unrighteous, the plaintiff in order to avoid strenuous litigation and to purchase peace offered to pay interest at the rate of 18% even though he is not obliged to pay under the terms of the suit contract and even though he is entitled to claim benefits under Act 4 of 1938".

A perusal of the above pleading in the plaint shows that the petitioner-plaintiff was very clear and categorical about his stand that he was willing to perform his part of the contract and in spite of the request being made to the defendant to execute and register the sale deed, as agreed the defendants are not coming forward to fulfill the same. However, in order to wriggle out from the contractual obligation, a demand was made by the defendant-respondent to pay interest at 36% over the unpaid sale consideration. The further assertion in categorical terms made by the plaintiff was to the effect that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay any interest, however, in order to avoid any litigation, he offered to pay interest at 18% even though he was not liable to pay at the time of the suit contract, and even though he was entitled to claim the benefit under Act 4 of 1938.

The lower Court construed the above said pleading in the plaint as that of an admission made by the petitioner-plaintiff to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. But in my view that does not appear to be so, and the lower Court is not correct in giving such an interpretation. My view gets further support from the contents of the sale agreement that was entered into between the parties which was made available to this Court on the strength of which, the suit was laid by the petitioner-plaintiff.

A careful perusal of the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale reveals that no such condition was incorporated with regard to payment of interest on the balance of sale consideration to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff. The pleadings in the plaint, therefore, are to be read in conjunction with the sale agreement and any interpretation with regard to the operation of such pleadings has to be made only with reference to the basic document i.e., the agreement of sale. When admittedly, there is no reference with regard to the quantum of interest much less payment of interest in the sale agreement, the lower Court cannot enlarge the scope of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, pending trial in the suit. The question of payment of interest and its quantification would arise only at the time of final disposal of the suit on merits of the case. Therefore, in my view ordering payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.m., would amount to pre-determining the issue which is yet to be framed and tried in the suit, and hence any order with regard to payment of interest at the threshold of the suit tantamounts to transgression of the scope of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the lower Court injudiciously.

For the reasons as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the order of the trial Court under revision is liable to be set aside to the extent of ordering payment of interest at the rate of 18%, since admittedly the other amount of Rs. 37,500/- has already been deposited by the petitioner-plaintiff. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court in O.S. No. 29 of 1993, dated 21-7-1998 is set aside to the extent of payment of interest at the rate of 18%. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.

It is further made clear that the lower Court would dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made while disposing of this Civil Revision Petition.