' In this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-1-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore for acceptance of application of the respondent for review of earlier order dated 22-11-1980 through which the appeal was dismissed.
2. The learned trial Court passed a consent decree for recovery of an amount of Rs,35,929.86. The learned trial Court held that since the defendants on appearance before the Court conceded the decree, therefore, he while passing the decree for the recovery of the said amount, on the basis of compromise, in his discretion declined to grant cost of the suit as also interest on the decretal amount from the date of the suit onward to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved against the said part of the decree viz, cost the suit and interest on decretal amount from the date of the suit upto the realization filed appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was dismissed on 22-11-1980 by a short order holding that the same was not competent being an appeal directed against the consent decree.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application for review of the said order contending that the part of the decree regarding cost and interest from the date of suit was not consent decree as the same was passed by the Court itself in its discretion. The learned lower Appellate Court held that the said part of the decree was not consent decree therefore, he modified the decree to the extent chat the cost of the suit as also the interest on decretal amount from the date of the suit upto the date of realization was granted through order dated 17-1-1983 which has been challenged in this revision petition. {{PARAGRAPH CUT}}
5. I have perused the orders passed by the learned trial Court from which it manifest that the respondent/plaintiff did not agree that the cost of the suit and e interest on the decretal amount from the date of the suit be waived. It is clear the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that after having agreed to cover an amount of Rs,35,929.86 he pressed for passing an order for recovery of set of the suit as also the interest from the date of suit. The learned trial Court its discretion did not allow the same, therefore, the said part of the judgment d decree of the learned trial Court was rightly held to be not consent decree as chi the appeal of the respondent to that extent was rightly held to be maintainable and review application was rightly entertained. It has been enacted Section 34-B of the C.P.C. That in such a case the Court shall grant interest on' e decretal amount from the date of the suit, therefore, the respondent-Bank is entitled to the recovery of interest on the decretal amount, therefore, the [punned order dated 17-1-1983 to that extent suffers from no illegality or aterial irregularity calling for interference. However, the learned trial Court was ,t bound to grant cost of the suit to the plaintiff in its discretion. It was rightly Id by the learned trial Court that the defendant having appeared before the met and conceded the suit, therefore, the plaintiff should not be granted the set which discretion has been exercised on sound judicial principles and should I have been interfered with.
6. The learned lower Appellate Court while granting cost of the suit to the respondent through the impugned order dated 17-1-1983 in my view acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it under the law. This revision petition is partly accepted. The order dated 17- 1-1983 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court to the extent of granting cost of the suit to the respondent is set aside whereas the said order qua grant of interest to the respondent is maintained. The revision petition is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.