' The petitioners who are 39 in number filed this Constitution Petition against the respondent Bank in liquidation challenging the proceedings lodged by the Bank for recovering further amount under the decree passed by the Civil Court on 10-14981.
2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that a firm known as M/s. Sultan Ahmad Muhammad Azeem, Timber Merchants, Gujrat was granted overdraft facility by the Punjab and Kashmir. Bank Limited on 14th October 1946 on the security of a house with it. The aforesaid firm enjoyed the overdraft facility and a sum of Rs,50,680.80 fell due on 31st August, 1957. A suit was filed on 12th October, 1957 for recovery of the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of Rs,9% per annum. The original sum received as a loan was Rs,25,000. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 10-1-1981 for Rs,50,680.15 with interest at the aforesaid rate. An execution application for recovery of the decretal amount was then filed on 16th March, 1982. In the meanwhile the partners of the firm Ch. Sultan Ahmad and Muhammad Azeem expired leaving behind the present petitioners who are 39 in numbers including 8 widows. The decretal amount on account of interest amounted to Rs,6,92,414.39 by 30th November, 1986. It is pertinent to note that as against Rs,25,000 the amount originally received, a sum of Rs,4,31,462 according to the learned counsel for the Bank and Rs,4,91,668 according to the learned counsel for the petitioners has been deposited with the bank, still more than Rupees two lacs are being demanded by the respondent- Bank from the petitioners. If the amount of interest is added for the period from November, 1986 to November, 1990 till date, the amount due will increase to more than Rupees three lacs. Thus, despite payment of more than 15 times of the original amount, the respondent-Bank is demanding from the petitioners more amount. This is the classic manifestation of the rigour of "Interest" and of the devastating effect that the interest carries with it. In the circumstances of the case and the present policy of law, instead of deciding the question whether the respondent bank is entitled to charge further sum from the petitioner, it will be appropriate to direct the respondent-Bank to extend the necessary relief by waiving the remaining amount representing interest. The petitioners were at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum if the respondent- Bank fails to extend necessary relief. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of.