C.R.No.2482 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2482 of 2011 The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies ....Petitioner Versus M/s Radical Builders (I) Pvt Ltd and another ....Respondents And C.R.No.2483 of 2011 The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies ....Petitioner Versus M/s Radical Builders (I) Pvt Ltd and another ....Respondents Date of Decision: 21.4.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions bearing C.R.No.2482 of 2011 and C.R.No.2483 of 2011 since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same. Facts are being taken from C.R.No.2482 of 2011. By filing the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (for short “Housefed”) has assailed the order dated 10.12.2010 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and for restoration of the order dated 27.5.2009 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh. Facts of the case are that an agreement dated 4.12.1988 C.R.No.2482 of 2011 #2# was entered into between Guru Teg Bahadur Cooperative House Building Society Ltd (for short “the Society”) and respondent No.1 for construction of 168 Flats at Mohali. Subsequently, the said agreement was converted into a tripartite agreement on 24.7.1989 between the Society, respondent No.1 and the Housefed. Due to some differences/disputes, the matter was referred to Arbitrator and ultimately an award dated 16.8.1996 was passed against the petitioner, which was made rule of the Court by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 4.1.1999. It is necessary to mention here that the matter has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, an execution petition was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and others, which was opposed by way of filing the objections on behalf of present petitioner. Learned Executing Court accepted the objections filed by the petitioner and dismissed the execution petition vide order dated 27.5.2009 (P.1) by recording a finding that entire payment in terms of the award has already been made by the JD. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.5.2009, respondent No.1 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 10.12.2010 (P.3) while setting aside the order dated 27.5.2009, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed the execution petition by observing that the entire decretal amount along with interest in terms of C.R.No.2482 of 2011 #3# award has already been paid by the JD/petitioner and as such there was no occasion for the first Appellate Court to set aside the well reasoned order dated 27.5.2009. It is further argued that there was no stipulation in the award that the amount paid by the JD is to be adjusted first towards interest and then against principal. It is also argued that if the reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court is to be accepted, then the petitioner-JD will be liable to pay interest upon interest, which is not at all permissible in the eyes of law. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. There is no dispute that the award was passed against the petitioner by the learned Arbitrator on 16.8.1996, which was made the Rule of Court on 4.1.1999. As per the own case of the petitioner, the following amount was paid to respondent No.1/decree holder: Sr.No. Amount Date Cheque No. 1. Rs.1120185/- 15.4.1999 667186 2. Rs.2284125/- 19.12.2005 518738 3. Rs.4074777/- 31.10.2007 709779 It is the case of respondent No.1 that an amount of Rs.1660059/- was due along with interest after 1.11.2007. The only point in this case was whether the intermittent payments made by the petitioner referred above are to be adjusted first towards principal and then towards interest or the same is to be adjusted first against the interest component and then against the principal amount. The C.R.No.2482 of 2011 #4# controversy is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Megh Raj Singh and others v. Mst Bayabai and others AIR 1970 (Supreme Court) 161 wherein it has been held that “ the normal rule is that in the case of a debt due with interest any payment made by the debtor is in the first instance to be applied towards satisfaction of interest and thereafter to the principal”. Thus, the payment made by the petitioner is to be adjusted first towards interest and then towards principal. The plea of the petitioner that the reasoning of the learned Appellate Court will amount to payment of interest upon interest is fallacious in view of settled legal preposition of law as referred above. In my opinion, the learned Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion after relying upon Megh Raj's case (supra) that the amount paid by the JD-petitioner shall be adjusted first towards the interest and then towards the principal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 10.12.2010 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 21, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE C.R.No.2482 of 2011 #5#