A. Pasayat, J.
1. The scope and ambit of Sections 7-C and 10 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') fall for consideration in this application.
2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
Petitioner as decree-holder has lodged Execution Case No. 4 of 1988 which is pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge (now redesignated as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champua. He has filed the Execution Case for realisation of Rs. 11,520/- from Kusha Naik, the Judgment debtor. It is admitted that the decree-holder had advanced a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the Judgment debtor on the basis of a hand note executed by the latter. Money Suit No. 14 of 1978 was filed by the decree-holder which ended in compromise. Since there was failure to stick to the terms indicated in the compromise, execution case was filed. Stand of the Judgment debtor was that the decree-holder cannot realise any amount as interest, which is more than the principal. Stand of the decree-holder was that insertion of Section 7-C to the Act did not make any difference, and protection afforded by Section 10 operated. The plea did not find acceptance by the learned Subordinate Judge as was then designated.
3. It was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that a harmonious reading of Section 7-C and Section 10 makes it clear that there is no embargo on recovery of any amount which exceeds the principal. It is stated that since compromise was not acted upon, the amount including interest as agreed to be paid became the principal, and therefore, question of the interest exceeding the original principal amount does not survive for consideration. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in. Orissa Bank Ltd. (in Liquidation) represented through the Official Liquidator. Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Shri Raghunath Prusty and Anr. : 43 (1977) CLT 405. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submitted that Section 7-C makes a gulf of difference and there was no reference to the said provision in the decision rendered in Orissa Bank Ltd's case (supra).
4. In Section 7-C and Section 10, the vital provisions read as follows :
'7-C. No money fender shall recover towards the interest in respect of any loan advanced by him, an amount in excess Of the amount of the principal.'
'10. Maximum amount of interest which may be decreed and apropriation of excess interest towards loan--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law or in any contract, no Court shall in any suit whether brought by a money lender or by any other person in respect of a loan advanced before or after the commencement of this Act, pass a decree for an amount of interest for the period preceding the institution of the suit which, together with any amount already realised as Interest through Court or otherwise is greater than the amount of the loan originally advanced.
(2) Whether, in any suit, as is referred to in Sub-section (1), it is found that the amount already realised as interest through Court or otherwise, for the period preceding the institution, of the suit is greater than the amount of the loan originally advanced, so such of the said amount of interest as is in excess of the loan shall be appropriated towards the satisfaction of the loan and the Court shall pass a decree for the payment of the balance of the loan, if any.
(3) Where a decree passed by a Court on the 1st April, 1936 or thereafter on the basis of a loan remains unsatisfied in whole or in part on the date on which the Orissa Moneylenders (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XVII of 1947) comes into force, the Court which passed the decree or the Court or other authority to which the decree is sent for execution shall, on the application of the Judgment debtor, exercise the powers specified in Sub-section (2) and the decree shall be modified accordingly.'
A reference in this regard to Section 7-D of the Act is also necessary. The said provision reads as follows :
'7-D. Any loan in respect of which the money lender has realised from the debtor an amount equal to or more than twice the amount of the principal, shall stand discharged and the amount if any, so realised in excess of twice the amount of the loan shall be refunded by the money lender to the debtor.
Section 10 contains the principle of damdupat. As indicated by this Court in P, S. N. Murty v. D. V. Suryanarayan : 32 (1966) CLT 264, the principle is not applicable to pendent lite interest.
5. Recovery of a loan by a money lender through the agency of a Court is also a mode of recovery of loan, as contemplated under Sections 7-C and 7-D of the Act and the money lender cannot recover towards interest in respect of a loan an amount in excess of the amount of principal. Section 10 of the Act prohibits Courts to pass a decree for an amount of interest for the period preceding the institution of the suit, which together with any amount already realised as interest through Court or otherwise, is greater than the amount of the loan originally advanced. In P. S. N. Murty's case (supra), it was observed that the expression for an amount of interest for the period preceding the institution of the suit' in Section 10 makes it absolutely clear that the realisation of interest beyond an amount equal to that of the principal is prohibited only upto the date of the institution of the suit, and that Section does not put an embargo on realisation of pendent lite and future interest on the principal. Sections 7-C and 7-D were not in the statute when the decision in P. S. N. Murty's case was rendered. Their insertion brings in a gulf of difference. This position was highlighted in Vysaraju Badreenarayana Moorty Raju v. Epari Venugopalam : 42 (1976) CLT 1075. Unfortunately in the decision rendered in Orissa Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) effect of Section 7-C was not considered. In that case stress was on the applicability of Section 10 and with reference to what has been stated in P. S. N, Murty's case, the said decision was rendered.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there being two inconsistent decisions, the matter needs a reference to larger Bench. I find no substance in the plea. A decision is an authority for what it decides on the facts of a case and not what logically flows from it. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. As observed by Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board: (1972) 2 CLR 537, there is always peril in treating words of a Judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. A decision rendered without taking note of a relevant statutory provision passes sub silentio, (See A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak : AIR 1988 SC 1531 : Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur ; AIR 1989 SC 38 : Union of India v. Raghubir Singh: AIR 1989 SC 1933: Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana : AIR 1990 SC 781). In that background, decision in Orison Bank Lad's case (supra) is not a binding precedent and must be held to have been passed sub silentio.
7. The object of Section 7-C is to provide benefits to a borrower. The revision is beneficial in nature and would become absolutely ineffective, and the object for which the said provision was introduced would get frustrated if the provision is made applicable only to recovery or realisation of loan out of Court, and not to recovery of the same through Courts. The inevitable result would be that the creditors will rush to the Court and will seek decrees enabling them to realise money more than double the principal advanced as loan. That certainly cannot be the legislative intent. On a harmonious reading of Sections 7-C, 7-D and 10 of the Act, the inevitable conclusion is that there is absolute embargo on realisation of double or more the principal amount advanced as loan,
The civil revision is dismissed.