-: 1 :- appeal 372/08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.28 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1837 OF 2003 Indira Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH APPEAL NO.373 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.733 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.469 OF 2003 Jyoti Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH APPEAL NO.374 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.734 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1837 OF 2003 Indira Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. srp -: 2 :- appeal 372/08. WITH APPEAL NO.375 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.29 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.469 OF 2003 Jyoti Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH APPEAL NO.376 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.736 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1536 OF 2003 Varij Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH APPEAL NO.377 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.30 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1536 OF 2003 Varij Sethi ..Appellant. Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Prasad K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. K. Srivastva, Ms.Manorama Mohanty i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the appellants. Mr. Gourav Joshi with Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co., for the respondents. Coram : D.K. DESHMUKH & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : June 28, 2011. -: 3 :- appeal 372/08. P. C. : 1. All these appeals challenge a common order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant facts are that the suits are filed by the appellant for money decree. In all these suits, decree on admission was passed. The decree on admission was for payment of the principal amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The plaintiff agreed to give concession in payment of the decretal amount by charging less rate of interest and also permitting payment of the amount as per clauses (3) and (4) of the consent terms. There is no dispute that payment as per clause (3) of the decree were made. While making payment of first installment as per clause (4), short payment was made because there was mistake committed in calculating interest. It is, however, apparent that after the plaintiff pointed out the mistake after about a year, the mistake was corrected. It is also apparent that corrected amount as per the consent terms was paid from the second installment. The case of the plaintiff was that because amount of first installment payable under clause (4) was paid short, he was entitled to adjust the amount paid towards the total interest due and therefore according to the plaintiff, each payment thereafter was short. According to the plaintiff, therefore, as per the consent terms in view of the -: 4 :- appeal 372/08. default, receiver should have been appointed. The defendant judgment-debtor took out these chamber summons basically praying for an order marking the decree as satisfied because all the decretal amount was paid. Learned Single Judge has accepted the case of the judgment debtor and has also held that the decree was satisfied because payment was made as per the consent decree. 2. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants, submitted that as the payment of first instalment under clause 4(1) was short, the plaintiff was entitled to adjust the amount of first installment towards the interest then due; and if so done, there are more than one default because each installment paid thereafter was short. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the plaintiff became entitled to the full decretal amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and therefore learned Single Judge was not justified in marking the decree as satisfied. Learned counsel submitted that by clause (1) of the consent decree, the amount due was to be paid with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and payment to be made by installments was merely a concession and therefore that clause has to be strictly read. The Learned -: 5 :- appeal 372/08. Counsel also submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7th April 2008 in Chamber Summons, the judgment-debtor had agreed to deposit the entire amount as per clause (1) of the consent terms, however, the amount was not paid as per clause (1) and therefore order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in these appeals is bad. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. What was passed in favour of the decree-holder is a money decree. Admittedly, the amount for which the decree was passed has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The question is whether in view of short payment made while making payment of first installment under Clause (4), it can be said that the judgment-debtor has committed more than two defaults as contemplated by the consent terms so that the decree holder becomes entitled to payment under clause (1) of the consent terms. We have perused the record. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the matter in right perspective and considering mainly that the decretal amount has been paid, in our opinion, even assuming that there was some mistake committed in payment of installment because there was mistake in computing interest on the amount due, it -: 6 :- appeal 372/08. will be too harsh to appoint receiver on the property of the judgment debtor and to make him pay the amount at the higher rate of interest. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, even if there is any breach committed by the judgment-debtor, it is only technical breach. No interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is called for. Appeals are disposed of. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (Ranjit More, J.)