Laxminarayan Ganeshdas Judgment-Debtor v. Ghasiram Dalchand Palliwal Decree-Holder .

1. This appeal raises a short point and one which would not normally be of very much importance. Even in this suit which originally involved approximately Rupees 50,000 the difference between the figures whether one takes this view or that is under Rs. 300. The point is as follows: Where a decree orders the payment of a sum of money awarding interest until payment and the money is paid by payment into Court under the provision of O. 21, R. 1, does the interest run until notice has been given to the decree-holder under O. 21, R. 1(2)? or, does interest cease to run from the date of such payment?

2. The matter has been twice considered in India, so far as the report of the decisions indicate, that is to say in 42 Mad 5761 where it was held that interest does not cease to run until notice of deposit is given, and in AIR 1932 Cal 1112 where 42 Mad 576 was followed. AIR 1925 Nag 523 which is cited does not appear to us to be helpful because there the decree was specially worded and required not only payment but notice to be given.

3. That case is concerned with whether notice should be given. It does however contain the following observation:

Order 21, rule 1, sub-rule (2) of the CPC……clearly shows that a notice in writing of the payment into Court has to be given to the decree-holder and served in the manner provided for the service of summons.

4. Unfortunately in none of those cases was AIR 1924 PC 1334 at p. 135 adverted to. 42 Mad 576 was of course before that Privy Council decision but in AIR 1932 Cal 111 apparently the Court's attention was not directed to it. In AIR 1924 PC 133 what their Lordships were concerned with was the following question: In a suit to set aside a sale a conditional decree was passed. The condition was that the plaintiffs should pay a certain sum within a certain time. If they did so they would recover possession. If they did not, then the suit stood dismissed. In point of fact the plaintiffs' mortgagee, not a party, paid by paying into Court. The question was: Was the condition fulfilled? At page 135 their Lordships of the Judicial Committee observe:

Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that while the condition would have been satisfied by a payment to the appellant in person, which he accepted it was equally satisfied by a payment into Court, and that the latter was, in the circumstances, the appropriate mode of satisfying the condition.

5. If interest runs until payment and payment into Court is payment, then it is difficult to see why interest should run thereafter. 42 Mad 576 is largely based on considerations of convenience. Oldfield, J. observed that

there would be nothing to compel compliance by the judgment-debtor with Cl. 2, which enjoins the giving of notice of the payment to the decree-holder, if the running of interest stopped.

6. Seshagiri Ayyar, J. went rather on the analogy of O. 24, R. 3. That is a Rule which expressly stops interest where money has been paid into Court in satisfaction of the claim and the interest is stopped not from the date of payment in but from the date of the notice of the deposit which is required to be given through the Court by the person paying into Court. It must however be observed that, in our opinion, that analogy is not helpful because if interest stops only with the giving of notice in the absence of any provision one way or another R. 3 of O. 24 is unnecessary. The fact that Rule is in O. 24 and no similar Rule is in O. 21, R. 1, suggests to our mind that where the decree provides that interest should be paid up to the date of payment then interest is paid up to the date of payment only. We are impressed with the argument based on convenience but at the a me time in view of the Privy Council decision that payment in Court is equivalent to payment we think that it would be illogical to say that interest which is only payable up to the date of payment runs after such payment has been made. We therefore allow this appeal. We make no order as to costs.

D.S/R.K

7. Appeal allowed.