HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1837 of 2​008 ORDER:- The petitioner in this revision is judgment debtor No.1 (JDr) and he is the petitioner in E.A.No.157 of 2002 which he filed in E.P.No.40 of 2002 in O.S.No.715 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad which is the executing Court. 2. He filed the said E.A.No.157 of 2002 seeking refund of Rs.16,349/- with interest at 12% per annum from 19.08.2002 and also another sum of Rs.7,461-35ps along with interest at 12% per annum on the said amount from 06.02.2001 to the date of realisation on the ground that he paid the said amounts to the decree holder in excess of what is due from him to the decree holder under the decree. The executing Court after a contest dismissed the said E.A.No.157 of 2002 by its order dated 11.10.2007 and questioning the same the JDr has come up with this revision. The parties shall be referred to as JDr and DHr. 3. The DHr which is a chit fund company brought the suit O.S.No.715 of 1993 against the JDr (prized subscriber) and others for recovery of a sum of Rs.58,784/- with interest at 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.54,611/- from the date of the suit to the date of realisation. These details are found in the calculation memo and the EP copy filed by the DHr which are found in the paper book filed by the JDr. The said suit was decreed and the JDr was permitted to pay the decreetal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- each with a default clause that if he fails to pay two consecutive instalments the DHr would be entitled to execute the decree for the entire amount. It is the case of the JDr that from July 1997 onwards he paid the monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- each to the DHr regularly upto February 2001 and thereafter he addressed a letter dated 19.03.2001 to the DHr calling upon it to furnish a calculation memo in order to ascertain what was the amount due. These aspects are not in dispute as seen from the counter of the DHr filed in the said petition. 4. The plea of the JDr is that if counter interest is calculated on the payments made by him, the same would show that he paid an excess amount of Rs.7,461.35ps to the DHr and that the DHr without furnishing any reply to him for his letter dated 19.03.2001 filed EP for realisation of a sum of Rs.16,349/- with a false claim and realised the same from him and this amount of Rs.16,349/- also constitutes excess amount in addition to the sum of Rs.7,461- 35ps which was already paid in excess by him. Thus with the above pleas the JDr filed E.A.No.157 of 2002 for recovery of the said amounts as already stated supra. 5. The DHr filed counter. Its stand is that after receiving the letter dated 19.03.2001 from the JDr it furnished him a copy of the calculation memo showing that no excess was paid and that still a sum of Rs.16,349/- is due from him. In the EP a copy of which is found at page No.11 of the paper book filed by the JDr it is stated that the total amount that become due by the date of EP is Rs.1,21,349/- and that the JDr as per his calculation memo paid Rs.1,05,000/- in instalments and that still a sum of Rs.16,349/- is due. It denied the JDr’s claim that he paid excess amount of Rs.7,461-35ps. 6. The executing Court after considering the matter and relying upon a decision of this Court given in A.VENKATESWARA REDDY vs. VANGA SUBBA REDDY[1] dismissed the said E.A.No.157 of 2002 and that dismissal is now questioned in this revision by the JDr. 7. The point that therefore arises in this revision is whether JDr is entitled to counter interest on the payments made by him and in any event whether his claim that he paid extra amounts as pleaded by him is correct. 8. To decide the point it should be noted that in the paper book filed by the JDr in this revision a copy of his calculation memo is found at page No.21. In the said memo he has mentioned that from 27.07.1997 upto 06.02.2001 he paid in all Rs.1,05,000/- to the DHr in monthly instalments of Rs.2,500/- each. He then calculated interest on the said amounts periodically paid at Rs.21,481-65ps which he says is counter interest payable on the said amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. He then says that in all he paid Rs.1,26,491/-. He calculated the sum due under the decree at Rs.1,19,020-30ps and then says that he has paid a sum of Rs.7,461-35ps as excess. 9. Along with the EP the DHr also filed calculation memo. Including costs and interest on the amount decreed he calculated the sum due from the JDr at Rs.1,21,349/-. Out of that amount he has shown Rs.1,05,000/- as paid by the JDr and stated that still a sum of Rs.16,349/- as due. It is seen that the DHr filed the EP for the said amount of Rs.16,349/- and realised the same. 10. After initially hearing this matter, it was again re-opened under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ and Sri Francis the learned counsel for the JDr was specifically asked as to what is the provision of law or rule under which or the basis on which the JDr can claim counter interest on the payments made by him to the DHr. He could not show any provision of law or a legally tenable basis to support the claim of a judgment debtor for counter interest. 11. The basis of the claim of JDr is that he is entitled to counter interest on the amounts paid by him by way of instalments. It has now to be seen as to whether this claim of JDr for counter interest is legally tenable. It may be noted that the relationship between the JDr and the DHr even before the decree and after the decree is one of simple debtor and creditor. Thus whatever amounts JDr has paid to the DHr were nothing but payments made towards discharge of the decree debt owed by him and he did not pay any amount which was not due from him. Thus to repeat the relationship through out between the JDr and DHr has been and one of debtor and creditor. It cannot therefore be said that the JDr is entitled to interest or what he calls counter interest on the amounts paid by him to the DHr towards discharge of the decree debt. 12. It should now be noted that in M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. SMITHABEN H. PATEL[2] it is laid down that the general rule of appropriation of payments towards decreetal amount is that such an amount is to be adjusted firstly strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such direction, adjustments, should be made firstly in payment of interest and costs and thereafter in payment of the principal amount. It is also stated in this decision that in the absence of any direction in the decree the adjustments of the instalments should be in accordance with the agreement between the parties. In the above case decided by the Supreme Court the controversy was with respect to the adjustment of the instalments paid by the JDr towards principal and interest and the above principal has been laid down. 13. In the present case both sides especially the JDr did not file the decree copy and it is also not the case of the JDr that there is any agreement between him and the DHr prescribing the adjustment of the instalments towards principal and interest. The claim of the DHr would however show that he has adjusted the instalments both towards interest and principal and also costs and this is clear from the calculation memo enclosed by the DHr to the EP filed now. 14. It may be noted that in the calculation memo of the DHr which is at page 10 of the paper book filed by the JDr himself, the DHr has shown the total amount due upto 07.03.2002 as Rs.1,21,349/- and this covers principal amount, interest, suit costs and also EP costs. The interest is charged at 12% per annum as per the decree on the principal amount. It may then be noted that the DHr has given credit to Rs.1,05,000/- paid by the JDr in instalments. In fact it is the JDr’s claim also that he paid Rs.1,05,000/-. It therefore follows from the above calculation memo that the DHr has given credit to the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- paid by the JDr and adjusted it towards interest. costs and the principal amount and the DHr has shown a balance of Rs.16,349/- for which the EP was filed. 15. The JDr in the grounds of revision could not show or nor was it pointed out by his counsel as to how this calculation is wrong. On the other hand the JDr failed to show how is entitled to counter interest. Further in my view the adjustment of the amounts by the DHr cannot be said to be illegal and it cannot also be said that the said adjustment is inconsistent with the above decision of the Apex Court. The decision relied upon by the trial Court in my view is not applicable to this case. 16. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons which are different from those given by the executing Court, the conclusion of the executing Court in dismissing the JDr’s application must be held to be right. The point is accordingly decided against the JDr and this revision is dismissed with costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 7th April 2011 CVRK [1] 1998 (2) An.W.R 464 [2] AIR1999 SC 1036