THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY A.S. No.586 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellants borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the respondent, in the year 1999, and mortgaged some items of immovable property for repayment of the same. The relevant agreement, covering the rate of interest, etc., was entered into. The appellants repaid some amount, as agreed, but fell in due Rs.4,75,334.09 ps. After issuing demand notice, the respondent filed O.S.No.70 of 2005, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, for recovery of that amount, together with interest due. The appellants did not dispute the factum of borrowing of the amount. However, it was stated that, much before the suit came to be filed, the respondent agreed to close the account, on payment of Rs.10,43,000/-, and though the appellants agreed for the terms thereof, the benefit of the same was not extended to them. The particulars of payment made, from time to time, are furnished. Through its judgment dated 28-03-2008, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree, as prayed for. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: i) “Whether the ledger extract filed by the plaintiff bank is not correct as contended by the defendants? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree against the defendants? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mortgage decree against the properties mortgaged to the plaintiff bank by way of form-A registered partition deed dated 24-10-79? iv) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff bank is excessive?” On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, DW-1 was examined, and no documents were filed by them. The suit was decreed, as prayed for. As observed earlier, the appellants do not dispute the factum of their borrowing the amount, and the execution of a deed of mortgage. The respondent did not dispute that, two years before the suit came to be filed, negotiations have taken place, and a formula was evolved for settlement of the account. Ex.A-17 is the letter, dated 05-05-2003, addressed by the respondent, to the appellants. It reads as under: “With reference to the correspondence ending with your letter No.Nil, dated 15-01-03, we advise as under: 1. As per your letter dated 14-10-02, you should have paid 3 installments by now. Please advise the reasons for not doing so. 2. To establish your sincerity towards the compromise proposal, please remit minimum amount of 25% of the compromise amount within 10 days of receipt of this letter failing which we will be constrained to take all measures including legal action to recover our dues”. The appellants promptly responded and accepted for the proposal. In one of the letters, they complained lack of cooperation on the part of the respondent. Ultimately, the payments were made, strictly in accordance with the settlement suggested by the respondent. The delay in payment of the installments appears to be on account of lack of prior commitment on the part of the respondent. Once the appellants have acted, on the basis of the suggestion made by the respondent, and made payments, the latter cannot appropriate the amounts, paid under the settlement, and at the same time, file the suit for the entire amount. Across the Bar, it is stated that the installments suggested in Ex.A-17 were paid, with some delay. This Court is of the view that, ends of justice would be met, if the respondent is entitled to recover simple interest at 9% per annum, without any intervals for the period of delay, in payment of the installments. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part, and the decree under appeal is modified, to the effect that there shall be a preliminary decree for the amount, representing simple interest at 9% per annum, without any rests, for the period of delay in payment of the installments, indicated in Ex.A-17, dt. 05-05-2003. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-11-2009. KO