* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 543 OF 2007 Mrs.Sunita Ganesh Bhole & anr. .....Applicants Versus The Sangli Bank Ltd, Sangli ....Respondents. --------- Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Sr.Adv. i/by.Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, adv.for the applicants Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 30TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 29th August, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Special Darkhast No.142 of 1988. The applicants are the original judgment debtors no.4a to 4e. The respondent is the original decree holder. 2. The respondent filed Special Civil Suit NO. 114 of 1984 inter-alia for recovery of Rs.5,74,730.81p and interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. The parties filed compromise purshis dated 1st December, 1984 in terms of which the suit was decreed. In the compromise purshis, the defendants to the suit admitted the * 2 * correctness of the claim in the plaint arising under a cash credit hypothecation account and agreed over repayment of the dues as well as on incidental points. Clause-3A of the compromise purshis provides for repayment of the claim amount and the interest thereon by installments spread over the span of six years. Clause-3B makes provision in case of a default committed in payment under Clause- 3A. The judgment debtors did commit default in payment of the installments as agreed under the consent decree. Hence, the decree holder filed execution proceedings. 3. In the Darkhast proceedings the revision applicants filed Exhibit-87 tendering cheque in the sum of Rs.6,31,225/- praying, inter-alia, that the same may be accepted towards full and final settlement of the decretal dues, with a further request that, with that payment, the decree should be marked satisfied. According to the applicants, the provision of interest at Clause-3B of the compromise purshis is for simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Therefore, they calculated their liability accordingly. The respondent filed reply denying that payment of Rs.6,31,225/- would discharge the judgment debtors. It contends that the agreement as regards the payment of the claim amount and the interest is contained in Clause-3A of the compromise purshis. Clause-3B provides only for consequences of default of that agreement. The consequence of the default is firstly that the decreetal amount becomes payable at once and secondly that the concession in the * 3 * rate of interest from 18% p.a. to 15% p.a. stands cancelled. There is no change in the manner of calculation of interest agreed between the parties at Clause-3A. Therefore according to the respondent, calculation of decreetal amount on the basis of simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is incorrect. It contends that it is entitled to compound interest as provided in Clause-3A. 4. The application at Exhibit-87 was first decided by the trial court by its order dated 29th September, 2005. By the said order, the application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order, the present revision applicants challenged the same by filing Civil Revision Application No. 162 of 2005. That was allowed by the order dated 23rd June, 2006. In the order, this court observed that the trial court had not addressed the issues raised by the respective parties. The trial court had also not recorded a clear finding that the statement of accounts prepared by the respondent is correct thereby rejecting the claim of the applicants that wrong computation had been done. Hence, the trial court was directed to decide Exhibit-87 afresh. 5. The trial court decided Exhibit-87 afresh and rejected the same by the impugned order. Mr.Anturkar learned counsel for the applicants, submits that in this order also the issues raised by the parties remains unaddressed. Perusal of the impugned order shows though it runs into 18 pages, it contains the same defect as the earlier order dated 29th September, 2005. Page 1 to 11 of the * 4 * order are devoted to the contention of the parties and reproduction of contents of Clauses 3A and 3B. The remaining paras do not address the issues raised by the parties regarding interpretation of Clauses 3A & 3B. The learned judge has accepted the statement of account of the respondent on the ground that certified extract of Bank Account is admissible in evidence as per Section 4 of Bankers Book Evidence Act. He has rejected the statement of the applicants because it is not prepared by any Chartered Accountant or any expert. The question for consideration of the court was not admissibility of the statement of account but correctness of its contents based on interpretation of the two clauses. 6. As regards the interest payable, the learned judge at unnumbered paragraph 9 of the order, observed as under :- “. Having regard to the fact and circumstance of the case J.D. failed to pay amount as per the consent decree and committed breaches of contract and default thereof. J.D. are liable to pay decreetal amount together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of default as per the terms and conditions of compromise decree. Clause 3-B of the consent decree provides that the interest shall be paid quarterly at the end of every quarter. The interest not paid in time shall be capitalized i.e. compound interest shall be charged. Facts in the present case and facts cited in law by J.D. are different, hence principle laid down therein is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, D.H. Bank calculated interest at the rate of 18% p.a. quarterly rests compound interest on outstanding dues after capitalization at the end of each quarter as provided by contract or stipulated in consent decree. Total interest charged on compounding basis during period 18.2.1984 to 3.8.1988 and thereafter detail charge given in Affidavit Exhibit-103 of Mr.R.J.Shah Bank Officer. The * 5 * interest is charged as per the terms of consent decree, as such it is proper and legal. Contract provides payment of compound interest in case of default from date of default.” 7. The provision for compound interest is made in Clause 3A and not Clause-3B of the compromise purshis. In these facts of the case, the learned trial judge ought to have addressed the rival contentions on interpretation of Clauses-3A and 3B of the compromise purshis and then arrived at his conclusion. In that circumstance, the impugned order cannot be sustained. A request was made on behalf of the applicants that instead of remanding the matter, the issue should be resolved by this court by analysing the rival stand. Since the learned trial judge has already been directed once that he should decide the matter afresh by addressing the issues raised by the respective parties, it would be more appropriate to remand the matter, so that the learned judge considers the rival stand and decides the matter on its merits. In the circumstances, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the application at Exhibit-87 be decided afresh by the learned trial judge in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. No order as to costs. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J]