IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3452 of 2009 Between: K. Venkateswara Rao and others. ... PETITIONERS AND Syndicate Bank. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. G. VIDAY SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: MRS. LEELA KALLUKUNTA The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is by the judgment debtors, who had taken loans from the respondent bank. For the recovery of the said loans the respondent bank had instituted legal proceedings, which ultimately was settled by award of the permanent Lok Adalat in Case No.938 of 2008 by award dated 06.02.2008. The material portion of which is as follows: “The petitioner has reduced the foreclosed loan amount of Rs.1,22,387/- (including interest up to 24.01.2008) to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) on the undertaking of Respondents 1 to 3 to pay it jointly and severally in two installments @ Rs.15,000/- on or before 31-3-2008 and Rs.75,000/- on or before 30-6-2008, failing which the Respondents would be liable to pay the entire foreclosed loan amount of Rs.1,22,387/- plus future contractual rate of interest in a lump sum minus repayments made by that date jointly and severally, as per Separate Settlement Agreement recorded u/sec. 22C(7) of the LSA Act, and the Petitioner would be at liberty to recover it with the contractual rate of interest by filing an execution petition in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as all the documents executed by Respondents 1 to 3, at the time of obtaining the loan, are deemed to have been susperseded by this Award.” 2. Since there was non-compliance of the obligation undertaken by the petitioners in the said award, the respondent bank filed E.P.No.124 of 2008 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and on 10.07.2009 when the said EP was called, all the petitioners were absent and there was no representation while the decree holder was present and the Court noticed that the judgment debtors/petitioners herein have not complied with the earlier conditional order and hence, arrest warrant was ordered. The said order directing arrest is questioned in this revision. 3. While admitting the revision petition, interim stay has been granted on 05.08.2009. The respondent bank had filed an application seeking vacation of the said order in CRPMP.No.6445 of 2009 whereupon this Court passed an order on 30.10.2009 making the stay absolute subject to condition of the petitioners depositing the balance decretal amount including costs within two months. Since the order was not complied with within the time, again the petitioners asked for extension of time and by a further order in CRPMP.No.1841 of 2010 dated 06.04.2010 the time was extended keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have deposited the entire decretal amount except the interest component. Thereafter, this revision has come up for hearing and has been heard on more than four occasions, when requests for adjournment was made on some ground or the other. 4. Heard both sides today also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though the entire decretal amount is paid, the first petitioner has approached the bank requesting to waive off the interest and close the litigation, which appears to have not been accepted by the bank on the ground that interest is much more than Rs.7,000/-, as claimed by the first petitioner and it has to be recalculated. 6. The award of the Lok Adalat extracted above, clearly states that in the event of default committed by the petitioners in complying with the installments granted thereunder, the contractual rate of interest in lump sum would be payable by the petitioners after giving credit to the repayments, if any, made by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that all the petitioners are Government employees and the first petitioner is, in fact, an Attender. He further submits that in view of the fact that the principal amount is already paid, the petitioners’ case for consideration of concession on the interest part deserves to be considered by the respondent bank. 8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the bank seriously opposed the said request and contends that there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall not pay the contractual interest. 9. A representation made by the first petitioner to the Manager of the respondent bank is placed before the Court wherein the interest component is said to be much more and required the first petitioner to recalculate. The said petition of the first petitioner is styled as Mercy Petition and it also mentions that the first petitioner is working as an Attender and has already suffered financial stringency. 10. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am of the view that it is not necessary to keep this revision petition pending any more and in the interest of justice it would suffice if a direction to the respondent bank is given to enable consideration of the petitioners’ request for waiver/concessional rate of interest. This Court had granted stay of arrest, as mentioned above, which shall remain in force up to 15.06.2010 and in the meanwhile, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondent bank by filing a detailed representation seeking waiver/concessional rate of interest on the principal loan amount and the respondent bank shall pass appropriate orders thereon on or before 10.06.2010. Subject to the orders of the bank, as above, the executing Court shall take up further proceedings as per law. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 29, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 01.04.2010 (B/o) DSK