IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2007 / 10TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 23749 of 2006(B) -------------------------- OS.1472/2005 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PRINGOTUKARA NAMBOODIRI YOGAKSHEMA SABHA, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.K.J. SREEKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. K.N. BHASI, KUPPAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. M.C. GEORGE, MUTTATHU HOUSE, VACHANAM VIVAS, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. M.T. GEORGE, MUTTATHU HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. K.K. SATHEESAN, KOLLASSERIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAN(JAGATHY) SRI.G.JAYANANDA PAI SRI.BAIJU JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.1472/05 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRONOTE EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY COPY OF PROFF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.1472/05. EXT.P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DATED 8/7/06 IN O.S.1472/05 PASSED BY THE 1 ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 23749 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2007. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order passed in O.S.1472/05. The suit is one for realisation of the amount due under a promissory note and it is contended by the learned counsel that the rate of interest stipulated in the promissory note is 21% whereas the Court has directed him to file a statement calculating the interest at 12%. He is totally aggrieved by that decision . 2. At the out set I may like to point out that the learned Munsiff should not have directed him to file a statement of that nature because the Court has to apply the principles of law after hearing both sides and consider what is the interest to be awarded. I am not expressing anything on merit on the case for the reason that the matter is pending before the trial court. Just because the plaintiff has filed a statement it should not be taken as a concession granted by the plaintiff regarding the rate of interest and the learned Munsiff is directed to consider the WPC 23749 OF 2006 -:Page numbers:- argument canvassed regarding the rate of interest by the plaintiff in accordance with law and decide the case accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. Krishnan, Judge. ul/-