1. This review application has been filed in terms of the leave granted by
being Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s). 50349/2024 on 9 th
2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the Special
We request the High Court to give a finding on said contention,
notwithstanding the observation made that the petitioner(s) is not
entitled to raise a contention on merits, as no objection was raised."
2. In view of the aforesaid observations, this application has been filed
and is limited to the extent to ascertain whether the contention of the
applicant that even after the deposit is made interest has been added
contrary to Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court shall give a
finding on the said contention.
3. We have heard Mr. Jaydip Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicants and Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. The decree holder filed two execution applications being EC/55/2017
and EC/5/2017 for execution of a decree dated 17 th September, 2015.
The decree was for realization of money claim of Rs.50,83,155/- along
with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
5. The learned Single Judge in deciding the said application passed an
order on 16th May, 2023 by which a sum of Rs.52,00,000/-
maintained with the Union Bank of India, Dharmtolla branch of the
judgment debtor was attached to the extent of Rs.52,00,000/-. The
appeal preferred against the decree was dismissed. The Coordinate
Bench in which one of us (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) was a party
affirmed the decree and accepted the determination of liability at a
reference held by the learned Registrar, Original Side in terms of the
order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. This order was under challenge
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the aforesaid directions.
6. Mr. Kar has submitted that by reason of attachment of
Rs.52,00,000/-, the applicant could not be saddled with liability of
interest on the said amount as the applicant/appellant was unable to
utilize the said amount. The direction of the Coordinate Bench in
directing payment of interest on the decretal amount, notwithstanding
attachment of the said account is contrary to Order 21 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
7. It is further submitted that even if it is contended and held that the
aforesaid finding of the Coordinate Bench with regard to payment of
interest on the principal amount is correct, no interest could have
been awarded on the cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
8. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the decree
holder has submitted that the said amount had remain attached,
however, it is considered that the interest would not have been
calculated at the rate of 18% on costs. Order 21 Rule 1 provides
modes of paying money under decree. The word to be emphasized is
payment of money under a decree. The order of attachment does not
give the benefit of the decree holder of the amount to which is entitled
to under the decree and hence he is unable to utilize the said amount
for his own purpose. The order of attachment is not akin to complete
loss of control over the money and debit of the account. It still shows
the said amount in the statement of account. In fact, the judgment
relied upon by Mr. Kar, namely, K. L. Suneja and Anr. Vs. Dr.
Manjeet Kaur Monga reported in (2023) 6 SCC 722, in paragraph 36
has clarified the said issue. For the sake of convenience, paragraph
36 is reproduced below:
"36. The provisions of Order 21 are applicable to decrees of civil
court. However, they embody a sound policy principle, that if the
amount is deposited, or paid to the decree-holder or person entitled
to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on
it. This is a rule of prudence, inasmuch as the debtor, or person
required to pay or refund the amount, is under an obligation to
ensure that the amount payable is placed at the disposal of the
person entitled to receive it. Once that is complete (in the form of
payment, through different modes, including tendering a banker's
cheque, or pay order or demand draft, all of which require the
account-holder/debtor to pay the bank, which would then issue the
instrument) the tender, or "payment" is complete."
9. In view thereof, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Kar that
by reason of attachment order the plaintiff would not be entitled to
any interest on the principal sum as directed by the learned Single
Judge and affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. However, there
appears to be a mistake or error in the order apparent on the face of
the record as the order has accepted the calculation made by the
learned Registrar, Original Side in which it appears that interest at
the rate of 18% was charged on the costs awarded, namely,
Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. In view thereof, we allow the review application to the extent that
awarding of interest on costs assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside
and the learned Registrar, Original Side is directed to re-calculate the
said amount on the basis of the principal sum by making suitable
revision to the calculation made on 3rd July, 2024 and accepted by
the Coordinate Bench.
11. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter shall
be listed on 27th June, 2025 under the heading 'For Orders'.
12. The learned Registrar, Original Side is directed to recalculate the
amount in terms of this order with the assistance of the Advocate-on-
record for the parties and file a revised report on the adjourned date.
13. The cut off date for the calculation should be as of 3 rd July, 2024 and
all payments made in the meantime shall be adjusted towards the
decretal amount.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.)
(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)
s.pal/mg
