[2025:RJ-JP:11242] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20782/2019 Rajasthan Finance Corporation, Jaipur Branch C-9, Ballabh Bari, Kota Through Its Authorised Officer ----Petitioner-Decree Holder Versus Narendra Goswami S/o Late Shri D.k. Goswami, Proprietor Industry M/s Aver Industries Road No. 196, Indraprastha Industrial Area, Kota.(Since died). 1/1. Smt. Pushpa Goswami (Wife). 1/2. Tarun Goswami (Son). 1/3. Ritu Goswami (Daughter). Of Late Shri Narendra Goswami R/o House No.3/338, Karbala Raod, Ladpura, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondent-Judgment-Debtors. For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manju Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv. with Mr. Bhawani Shankar, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 12/03/2025 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- decree holder (for short ‘the decree holder’), against the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No.10/03, whereby the executing court directed the decree holder to pay Rs.3,06,28,764.06 within a month to the judgment debtors, failing which the respondents-judgment debtors (for short ‘the judgment debtors’) shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount. [2025:RJ-JP:11242] (2 of 4) [CW-20782/2019] Learned counsel for the decree holder submits that judgment debtor-Narendra Goswami had taken a loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the decree holder but said amount was not repaid by him. So, on the application of the decree holder, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kota, vide order dated 18.12.1996 ordered that the decree holder is entitled to get Rs.9,53,079.02/- along with interest @ 16% per annum from the judgment debtor from the date of filing the application i.e. 16.03.1989 till recovery. Learned counsel for the decree holder further submits that the decree holder had filed an execution petition for recovery of the said amount. The Executing Court auctioned the property but since the auction purchaser did not deposit the sale consideration in one installment, the executing Court released the amount in favour of RFC against the outstanding amount towards M/s Aver Industries. The legal heirs of Narendra Goswami filed an application before the executing court to the effect that the decree holder is not entitled to get 16% compound interest yearly. Learned counsel for the decree holder further submits that the executing court had procured the report from the Treasury Officer regarding 16% simple interest as well as compound interest. As per Treasury Officer Report, the decree holder is entitled to get Rs.35,78,056.92 on the basis of @ 16% simple interest. Whereas, on account of auction, amount of Rs.3,50,10,000/- already been received by the decree holder. Learned counsel for the decree holder further submits that as per the agreement, compound interest was to be calculated at the rate of 16% per annum with yearly. Learned counsel for the decree holder further submits that as per the terms of the [2025:RJ-JP:11242] (3 of 4) [CW-20782/2019] agreement as provided under Section 31 (a) of the State Finance Act, the decree holder is entitled to get interest as per the agreement. So, Section 34 CPC was not applicable on it. As per the agreement, the decree holder is entitled to recover more than Rs. 5 crores. So, after deducting the auction amount, the decree holder has right to recover the balance amount from the judgment debtors but the Executing Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 wrongly ordered to refund the amount of Rs.3,06,28,764.06 to the judgment debtors within a period of one month, failing which the judgment debtors shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum. So, the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Executing Court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the decree holder has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Seaking & Ors. Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation reported in AIRONLINE 1999 SC 740. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the decree holder and submitted that the executing court vide order dated 21.10.2019 rightly ordered the decree holder to refund the amount of Rs.3,06,28,764.06 to judgment-debtors because as per the order dated 18.12.1996, the trial court had granted only 16% interest per annum which amount to simple interest and not compound interest. Auction was finalised at Rs.3,50,10,000/-. So, the executing Court rightly directed the decree holder to repay the amount of Rs.3,06,28,764.06 to the judgment debtors. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:11242] (4 of 4) [CW-20782/2019] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the decree holder as well as learned counsel for the judgment debtors. It is an admitted position that the application filed by the decree holder was decided vide order dated 18.12.1996 against the judgment debtors in which it was mentioned that the decree holder is entitled to get Rs.9,53,079.02/- from the judgment debtors and also entitled to get the aforesaid amount @ 16% interest per annum from the date of filing the application i.e. 15.03.1989 till the date of recovery. The said court had not specifically mentioned that the decree holder is entitled to get simple interest or compound interest. It is a settled proposition of Law that interest should be calculated on simple basis and not compound basis. So, in my considered opinion, the executing court has not committed any error in directing to refund the amount of Rs.3,06,28,764.06 to the judgment debtors. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/167