IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 233 of 2007 Smt. Lagnawati Devi wife of Sri Paras Nath Pathak, Resident of Mohalla Civil Lines, Buxar, P.S. – Town Than Buxar, District Buxar. …Proforma Defendant-Judgment debtor-Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Shree Hridya Narain Kumar, resident of Buxar, Near Town P.S. Buxar, District Buxar ……..Plaintiff-Decree holder-Opposite Party 1set 2. Mossomat Bhagwati Devi wife of Late Mahadeo Prasad(Typist) 3. Ajay Kumar Sinha son of Late Mahadeo Prasad residing at civil line At/P.O./P.S./Distt. –Buxar 4. Srimati Madhu Rani Sinha wife of Sri Anil Kumar Vidyarthi residing at Q.No.140, Sector III, Bokaro Steel City, At/P.O./P.S.- Bokaro, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Daughter of late Mahadeo Prasad, resident of village Manpur, P.S. Asthawa District Patna, at present Mosalahpur Patna, P.S. Patna, District Patna. ……….Defendants-Judgment debtors-Opposite Party 2nd set. For the petitioner : M/s Devendra Pd. Sharma and Amarendra Kr. Pathak, Advocates. For the opposite parties : M/s Kamala Pd. Roy and Nawal Kishore Kashyap, Advocates. ----------- 05/ 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 28.11.2006 by which the learned Civil Judge-II (Senior Division), Buxar directed him to submit a Challan of Rs.26,645.50 along with interest up-to-date at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint (10.11.1981) in Title Suit No.149 of 1981. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party no.1 for recovery a loan amounting to Rs.24,000.00 with interest. The said suit was decreed by the 2 learned Civil Judge-II (Senior Division), Buxar vide his judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006 on contest with cost and directed the defendants to repay the amount of Rs.24,000.00 to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum along with cost within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that on 12.10.2006 he filed a petition before the learned court below along with Challan of Rs.26,645.50. It is quite apparent from the records that the suit having been filed in 1981 and having been decreed in 2006 for repayment of the loan amount with interest @ 6% per annum, the interest on the loan amount was to be counted from the date of filing of the suit and not from the date of the judgment. In the said circumstances the amount deposited by the petitioner was not at all sufficient for satisfying the decree. It further transpires from the impugned order that on 19.10.2006 the judgment-debtor agreed before the court to compound the case after paying Rs.57,000.00 to the decree- holder by 15.11.2006, but when the case was taken up on 15.11.2006 learned counsel for the judgment-debtor filed a petition that Challan of Rs.26,645.50 having already been submitted by him on 12.10.2006 and not having been passed up- till -now he cannot be forced to pay Rs.57,000.00. In the said circumstances the learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner had not moved the court with clean hand rather 3 there was concealment of facts by his learned counsel. It further found that Challan being for only Rs.26,645.50 it is quite apparent that it was only for the principal amount as well as cost of suit as decreed and no amount of interest had been added to that. In the said circumstances the learned court below has rightly directed the defendant-judgment-debtor to submit a fresh Challan of the aforesaid amount along with up-to-date interest, if he was willing to settle the dispute. In the said circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)