THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Appeal Suit No.2007 of 1993 Date: 10.12.2010 Between : Andhra Bank, Vuyyur. … Appellant and Valluru Umamaheswara Rao and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Appeal Suit No.2007 of 1993 JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the plaintiff-Bank against the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, in O.S.No.130 of 1984, dated 23.8.1990, dismissing the suit for non-filing of the calculation memo after the claim has been decreed. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.30,672/- being the amount due under pro-note executed by the defendants having borrowed the money for agricultural purposes and having acknowledged the debt by letters, dated 13.5.1978 and 9.5.1981. The defendants contended that the amount received by them is only Rs.17,400/- and that, being the agriculturists, they are entitled to the benefit of Act IV of 1938. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:- 1) Whether the suit claim is true and correct? 2) Whether the suit claim is in time? 3) Whether the interest claimed is usurious, penal, excessive and unconscionable? 4) Whether the interest is liable to be scaled down as per the provisions of the Act IV of 1938? 5) To what relief? 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court found issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and on issue Nos.3 and 4, simple interest was granted at 15% per annum and denied the benefits under Act IV of 1938. However, the plaintiff was directed to file calculation memo at 15% per annum from the date of loan and the consequent failure of which the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed, questioning the dismissal of the suit and also scaling down of the interest. 5. The points that arise for consideration are— (1) Whether the dismissal of the suit by the learned Senior Civil Judge is proper? (2) Whether the scaling down of the interest is legal? (3) To what relief? In re. to point Nos.1 to 3:- 6. Evidently, the defendants have not filed any appeal disputing the liability or the decree of the lower Court. The lower Court dismissed the suit on the only ground that the plaintiff has failed to file the calculation memo within one week. I feel that the dismissal of the suit on that ground, having accepted the claim of the plaintiff, cannot be sustained. If the plaintiff has not filed the calculation memo, since there are no adjustments to be made, the lower Court can pass a decree with the relief granted to the parties and at the time of execution, the decree holder can make calculations and if there is any wrong, the defendants have got opportunity to question the correctness of the amount. 7. There is no ambiguity in the judgment of the lower Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 15% of simple interest from the inception of the loan till realization. The date of the loan is clear, as it has started from 16.7.1975, and the Court also granted subsequent interest at the same rate. It is a mathematical calculation, which can be done at any time and filing of calculation memo is superfluous, since the quantum of amount to be realized is not in doubt, as the amount under pro-note as per Ex.A-1 for a sum of Rs.19,140/- was accepted by the lower Court. Since the lower Court has granted simple interest at 15% per annum from the date of loan till the date of realisation, the contention of the appellant on the quantum of interest is also not sustainable. 8. It is to be noted that it is the duty of the Court to draft the decree in pursuance of the judgment. When the judgment is unambiguous, there cannot be difficulty for the Court to draw the decree. If the Court intended that certain obligations are to be complied with, the Court could have only directed the deferring of the drafting of the decree and not disposal of the suit for non- compliance. Such a course causes a lot of hardship to the parties when the relief has been substantially granted. Usually in cases where Court fee is to be paid, such a direction is given. 9. Therefore, the judgment of the lower Court insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the suit on failure to file the calculation memo is erroneous and a decree shall be drafted by the Court below in terms of the judgment, which are unambiguous. Accordingly, the points are answered. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the dismissal of the suit by the lower Court is set aside and the lower Court is directed to prepare a decree as per the judgment, which will be a decree for the recovery of Rs.19,140/- with simple interest at 15% per annum from 16.7.1975 till the date of realization. Each party to bear their own costs in this appeal. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 10.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Appeal Suit No.2007 of 1993 10.12.2010 (Msr)