IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LPA No.38 of 2009 --- 1. Central Bank Of India, having its Head Office situated at Mumbai through its Chairman 2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Speaker Chowk, Muzaffarpur 3. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri Vihar, N.H. 28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur 4. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur 5. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur ………… Appellants Versus 1. 2. Ved Prakash Agrawal 3. Sudarshan Agarwal, both sons of late Ram Gopal Agarwal, resident of Ghirni Pokhar, Jawaharlal Road, P.O. & P.S., Town & District – Muzaffarpur ……… Respondents For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate ----------- 2 28-01-2009 Respondents – appellants aggrieved by the order dated 2nd December, 2008 passed in CWJC. No.16680 of 2008, have preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, appears on behalf of the appellants. Respondents are represented by Mr. S.D.Sanjay. - 2 - While handing over the direction, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: “The principal due as compromised and noted above was about Rs.1.44 crores, which stood fully liquidated more than 2 years back. The balance for which the entire controversy is only Rs.2.54 lacs and having failed to pay the same, the Bank is now seeking to realize Rs.11 crores, this shocks the conscience of the Court. On balancing of rights and equitable consideration, in my view, justice would be met by directing the petitioner at the first instance to deposit the balance of Rs.12.54 lacs within one week from today with the respondent – Bank. Bank would, in the mean time, calculate the interest as per prime bank lending rates on the amount of Rs.12.54 lacs from 01.09.2006 up to date and communicate the same to the petitioners. The petitioners would then arrange to pay the same within one month without demur. On making this payment the Bank would have got its interest with interest and that should satisfy equity and the Bank would then close the account as settled.” We do not find any error in the same so as to call for interference in the present appeal. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.