B. SIVANANDA versus THE ANDHRA BANK LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 18-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
B. SJVANANDA 
v. 
;HE ANDHRA BANK LTD. AND ANk. 
MARCH 18, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, J.1.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 190&-Ss.152, 34-Correction of judg-
me11t/decree/orde1-Awarding of interest-Court's power-Held, aggrieved 
party need not file appeal/review for correction of clelica/ or alithmatical e1rors 
C wising in judgment/decree/order; the same may be corrected at any time by 
the Court on its own or on application of a party to suit-Loan being taken 
for com1nercial transaction, /oanee should pay interest at contracted rate on 
plincipal amount from date of decree till date of realisation. 
The respondent-Bank tile a suit seeking a preliminary decree for sale 
D of properties mortgaged to it and a charge on hypothecated properties. A 
personal decree against the appellant and others for decretal amount with 
future interest was sought. The suit was decreed ex-parte. Two applications 
were tiled before the trial Court · one .by the respondent-Bank claiming 
interest at the rate of 16V2% on the decretal amotmt and the other by the 
E 
appellant contending that no interest could be granted since the judgment 
did not specify the liability relating to payment of future interest. The 
application of the appellant was allowed. On revision apJilication filed by 
the Bank, the High Court dismissed appellant's application. Hence the 
appeal by special leave. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
.~ 
' 
HELD : 1.1. In view of s. 152, C.P.C., it is not necessary that the 
> 
aggrieved party should file an appeal or a review for effecting correction 
of clerical or arithmatical mistakes arising from any accidental slip or 
G 
omission in the judgment or decree or order. The same may be corrected 
at any time by the court either on its own or on the application of any of 
the parties to the suit. (162-B·C] 
1.2. In the instant case, the respondent-Bank had sought a relief in the 
plaint for payment of a specified amount and interest thereon. The claim for 
H future interest at 16V2%, which was the contracted rate of interest was made 
'~60 
SIVANANDA v. ANDHRABANKLTD. 
161 
~, 
in the suit itself. The Bank is entitled to claim interest in terms of' the A 
contract at 16V2% from the date of' lending till the date of filing of the suit. 
The loan was for a commercial ttansction, In the facts and circumstances, 
irrespective of Court's discretion under s. 34, C.P.C., it would be just and 
proper that the appellant should pay simple interest at the rate of l6V2% 
per annum on the principal amount claimed in the suit from the date of the 
decree till the date of realisation. This should be confined to the instant case 
only on the peculiar facts of the case. [p.162-B-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 
1994. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.1992 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2827/89 & 3423/89. 
A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General and P.P. Singh for the D 
Respondent No. 1. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
E 
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 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
dismissed the application of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special 
leave. 
B 
c 
We need not go, in depth, into the controversy, raised in tl1e case but 
suffice to state that Bank sought a relief in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.