THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.4791 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner advanced a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the respondents herein, on 13-12-1971. Intermittent payments were made, but substantial part of the loan remained unpaid. Petitioner filed O.S.No.64 of 1986 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,06,803/-. The suit was decreed on 13-04-1993. Respondents filed A.S.No.2039 of 1993 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the appeal in part on 08-09-1997. The petitioner filed L.P.A.No.90 of 1999. The respondents, on the other hand, filed L.P.A.No.330 of 1998. Through a common order dated 22-11-1999, the appeals were disposed of. However, the review applications were filed, particularly in the context of the rate of interest to be adopted. Through order dated 18-09-2003, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the simple interest at 10% per annum shall be levied from the date of the circular, which was issued subsequent to the advancement of loan. As regards the period earlier to that, it was left open to the respondents to make a representation, and the petitioner was directed to consider the same. After making calculations, said to be in accordance with the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner filed the E.P. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.588 of 2004 under Rule 11 of Order 34, read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to apply interest at 10% simple, per annum, from the date of the loan. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the same. The amounts of Rs.37,228/- and 17,772/-, deposited by the petitioner, were treated as full satisfaction of the decree, and a direction was issued for release of the documents kept with the petitioner, as security. This relief was granted on the basis of a letter dated 08-12-2006, issued by the Chief General Manager of the petitioner-Bank. The said order is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is rather unfortunate that a loan transaction for a sum of Rs.55,000/- has lasted for about four decades. The suit itself was filed two decades earlier. The respondents did not dispute the fact that they obtained loan from the petitioner. The only controversy was about the rate of interest and method of calculation. It is a matter of record that a Division Bench of this Court took into account, the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and directed that the interest shall be levied at 10% simple, per annum, from the date of the loan. The little discretion given to the petitioner to apply the same earlier to the date of circular, was not exercised in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court took the letter and spirit of the judgments, rendered by this Court, at different points of time, as well as the circular dated 08-12-2006, and took the view that the decree is already satisfied. The petitioner, no doubt, has a genuine grievance, vis-à-vis the order under revision, which declared that the decree passed in the suit is fully satisfied, in view of the letter dated 08-12-2006. If this conclusion were to have been on the basis of the fact that simple interest at 10% per annum is applied, much controversy would not have arisen. A document, which does not form part of the record, either before the trial Court or in the Appeals; was taken into account. Such a course would have been permissible, if only the petitioner also did not have any objection for it. Across the Bar, the learned counsel for the respondents has passed on a statement, said to have been prepared by the Chartered Accountant, which is to the effect that, if simple interest at 10% per annum is applied, from the date of loan, till 28-01-1984, it emerges that the respondents are due, a sum of Rs.37,228/-, whereas an amount far exceeding was deposited, to the credit of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, supplied another statement of calculation, which is at variation with the one, filed by the respondents. This Court is of the view that the matter can be given quietus by directing the trial Court itself, to calculate the amount, due from the respondents, by levying simple interest at 10% per annum, from the date of the loan, duly giving credit to the amounts, that were paid by the respondents, from time to time, and thereafter, to verify as to whether the amounts deposited by the respondents to the credit of the suit would result in full satisfaction of the decree. The suggestions made and objections raised by the parties, in this regard, can be taken into account. Hence, the revision is disposed of, modifying the order under revision, to the effect that the petitioner shall levy simple interest at 10% per annum, on the loan, advanced to the respondents, from the date of advancement thereof; and the amounts deposited by the respondent before and after filing of the suit shall be taken into account. The trial Court shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-07-2010. KO