RFA 61 of 1994. 11.3.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Atun Jhingan, counsel for respondent No. 1. Pt. Om Parkash, counsel for respondents 3 and 4. CMP (M) Nos. 536 and 537 of 2009. Notices in these applications were issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 (a) and 4(b) have been served but nobody appeared on their behalf, they are proceeded against exparte. No process fee has been filed for service of respondent No. 4(d). Her name is accordingly deleted from the array of respondents. This will not affect the merits of the appeal as the estate of the deceased is properly represented in this appeal by his legal representatives. Respondents No. 4 (c ) and 4(e) seem to be served but none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, they are proceeded against ex parte. Necessary correction be carried out in the record. Heard. For the reasons stated in these applications, the same are allowed. The delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 4 is condoned. It is directed -2- that the legal representatives of respondent No. 4 as mentioned in Para 1 of the application be taken on record of the case. Both these applications are disposed of. RFA No. 61 of 1994. The plaintiff – appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Hon’ble Single Judge on the ground that interest has not been awarded to the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with law. The only point urged before us is that the principal sum on which the interest has to be charged is to be adjudicated by the Court and this sum would include the interest charged thereon. It is undisputed that the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, 2002 (1) SCC 367 has held that the principal sum adjudicated would include the interest charged thereon in accordance with agreement(s) excluding penal interest. We accordingly modify the decree and hold that the plaintiff will be entitled to charge interest on the principal sum adjudicated which would include element of interest but not penalty and penal interest. Another submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that no condition could have been imposed by the Hon’ble -3- Single Judge by ordering that the decretal amount be recovered by sale of the hypothecated property which in this case is a bus. We do not find anything illegal in this direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge. Needless to say, if the amount cannot be recovered from the sale of this hypothecated property, it will be open to the Decree Holder to execute the decree in accordance with law. On the submission that the bus is not available for attachment and sale, all that we need say is that as and when the execution is filed, this point can be pleaded and proved before the executing Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed in terms of the order as aforesaid and the decree is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. March 11, 2010 (PC). (Kuldip Singh), J.