B. Sivananda v. the Andhra Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Leave granted. We have heared both counsel. The respondent filed 0.S. No. 74/79 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ananthpur, Andhra Pradesh on June 11, 1979 seeking a preliminary decree for sale of properties covered by two simple mortgages, dated July 3, 1976 and December 13, 1976 and a charge on the F hypothecated moveables and immoveables, moveables have been men­ tioned in schedule 'B' and a personal decree against appellant and others was sought for the decreetal amount with future interest and costs. The suit was decreed ex- partc on March 13, 1986. Thereafter, two applications were filed- one by the respondent-Bank claiming interest at the rate of 16\/2% on the decreetal amount and another by the appellant. The appel- G !ant contended that no interest can be granted since the judgment did not specify the liability relating to payment of future interest. The trial court allowed the application of the appellant and dismissed the application of the respondent-Bank. On revision filed by the Bank, the High Court, by its order dated September 23, 1989 allowed the revision of the Bank and H A dismissed the application of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special leave. We need not go, in depth, into the controversy, raised in tl1e case but suffice to state that Bank sought a relief in the plaint for payment of an amount specified and interest on the principal amount of Rs. 5,25,000. With interest accrued thereon till date of suit, the amount came to Rs. 6,89,917.79ps .. Section 152, C.P.C., clearly gives power to the Court to amend clerical or arithametical mistakes in the judgment and decree or order or any errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The same may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties to the suit. Therefore, it is not necessary that the aggrieved party should necessarily file an appeal or review for effecting correction of the judgment or decree or order. But in this casei as seen) that the claim for future interest at l6V2% was made in the suit itself which admittedly, is the contracted rate of interest. Therefore, the Bank is entitled to claim interest in terms of the contract at D l6V2% from the date of lending till the date of filing of the suit. However, the Court has discretion under Section 34 C.P.C. to award interest. Admit­ tedly, the loan was taken for construction of theatre. In other words, the ) loan was for a commercial transaction. In the facts and circumstances of J this case, we consider it just and proper that the appellant should pay E simple interest at the rate of l6V2% per annum on the principal amount claimed in this suit from the date of the decree till the date of realisation. This should be confined to this case only, on the peculiar facts of this case. It is stated in the appellant's written arguments that as on date, a sum of Rs. 2,53,000 had already be.en paid and the appellant shall pay the balance amount along with future interest within six months from today. We permit him to make payment accordingly. In the event, any default is committed by the appellant, the benefit of this judgment will not be available to the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent but in the curcumstances, without costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of. >