IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 2180 of 2003() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2003 IN IN EP.124/2001 IN OS.1396/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISIONPETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER : ----------------------------------------------- THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., OLLUR BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS : --------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.VELAYUDHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S PACK WELL INDIA (DIED). HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE: 2. THANKAMMA VELAYUDHAN, W/O LATE VELAYUDHAN,PERUMPILLI HOUSE, CAICO ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. SUJATHA VELAYUDHAN, D/O VELAYUDHAN, (WORKING AT CENTRAL AND EXCISE OFFICE AT ALATHUR) -DO-DO- 4. ASALATHA,D/O VELAYUDHAN,-DO- BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN - R1 TO 3 SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA - R1 TO R3 SRI.BABY MATHEW - R1 TO R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J -------------------------------- C.R.P. No.2180 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 ORDER The decree holder is the revision petitioner. The execution court held that the decree holder/bank is not entitled to get any amount towards the decree amount and that the decree debt had already been paid by the judgment debtor. Therefore the execution petition was dismissed. 2. The revision petitioner/bank is a holder of money decree in O.S.No.1396/93 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit was decreed on 14.06.1996 on the following terms:- (1) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,66,447/- with future interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum thereon less Rs.25,000/- paid on 30.04.1995, Rs.50,000/- paid on 04.04.1995, Rs.25,000/- paid on 28.07.1995, Rs.56,500/- paid on 20.09.1995 from the date of suit till payment. (2) That the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of C.R.P. No.2180 of 2003 2 Rs.805/- towards the cost of the suit. (3) That the plaitniff is at liberty to realize the decree debt by proceeding against the defendant and by sale of the plaint schedule property. (4) That half court fee be refunded to the plaintiff. The decree provides for payment by the defendant to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,66,447/- minus the amount paid as on the date of decree. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that as on the date of the decree, he paid Rs.1,81,250/- and subsequently Rs.4,966/- totalling to Rs.1,86,216/-. According to the judgment debtor, he is not liable to pay any amount towards the decree debt. The statement produced by the bank before this court shows that an amount of Rs.1,81,726.65/- is due as on 15.11.2007. 3. It is submitted at the bar that the judgment debtor is no more. I find that the judgment debtor was regularly paying the amount to the bank even before the date of the decree. As on the date of decree also the decree shows that he has paid Rs.1,56,500/- out of the C.R.P. No.2180 of 2003 3 amount decreed at Rs.1,66,447/-. I am of the view that this is a case where the bank should have considered his request and ought to have refixed the amounts at a reduced rate of interest. Learned counsel for the bank requested this Court to refix the interest rate at a reasonable rate in view of the fact that the judgment debtor is no more and the matter is pending for all these years. I direct the court below to work out the balance amount, if any, due by refixing the rate of interest at 9%. The learned counsel for the decree holder had suggested that the interest rate may be refixed at 12%. 4. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the judgment debtor that he was regularly remitting the amount wtihout fault, I think the fixation of interest rate at 9% is just and fair. Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside. The execution court is directed to receive statements from both sides and fix the amount, if any, payable by the judgment debtor. The decree holder bank shall furnish the receipts of payment of the amounts by the judgment debtor. C.R.P. No.2180 of 2003 4 5. In the result the order under challenge is set aside. The execution court is directed to pass orders afresh within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. pac