http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6421 of 2003

PETITIONER: Punjab State & Others

RESPONDENT: Harvinder Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

I.A. NO.1 OF 2007 IN  CIVIL APPEAL NO.6421 OF 2003

V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.

1.      This is an Interlocutory Application in Civil Appeal No.6421 of 2003  which was earlier disposed of by this Court consisting of Justice S.  Rajendra Babu (As His Lordship then was) and Justice G.P. Mathur.  This  Court passed the following order in that appeal which was filed by the  State of Punjab: "Leave granted

In the light of decision of this Court in Rameshwar Dass Gupta  vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [(1996) 5 SCC 728], order made by the  Executing Court granting interest shall stand deleted and in  other respects the order made by the Executing Court, as  affirmed by the High Court is maintained.  The appeal is  disposed of accordingly."

This appeal was filed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court, wherein the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction had dismissed  the revision filed by the State and its three other officers against the order  passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana.  By its order the Trial  Court had allowed the application filed by the applicant herein, Harvinder  Singh.  In his application, which was filed during the execution, the  applicant had pointed out that the net amount due to him as a decree- holder was Rs.4550/- and he was also entitled to the interest from the date  of decree till the amount was paid.  Learned Trial Judge observed that the  decree was passed on 27.11.1990 but there was no mention of interest in  the relief clause.  The Trial Court relied on a decision reported in State of  Punjab v. Radha Ram & Ors [1990 (2) SLR 588] and held on the basis  thereof that the executing court had power to award interest from the date  of decree till the amount is realized, though there is no such mention of  interest in the decree.  In the result the Trial Court awarded 12% interest  from the date of decree till the date of realization.  Thus the execution  application was allowed.  2.      As has been stated earlier, the Revision Petition against this order  was dismissed in limine by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.   3.      When the matter came up before this Court at the instance of the  State and its three other officers, the same was disposed by the order  which we have quoted above.  The applicant herein, therefore, filed the  present application on the ground that before passing the order no  reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant-respondent of being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

heard and the order was not correct as there were other arguable points in  connection with the interest on the arrears.  It was stated that though the  applicant was respondent in Civil Appeal No.6421 of 2003, he did not/could  not appear on account of certain illness.  It is on this basis that the  aforementioned order dated 14.8.2003, passed by this Court, came to be  assailed.  A notice was issued to the State Government on the application  and the parties were heard by us.   4.      The applicant-respondent argued himself and contended before us  that on some earlier occasions this Court had granted interest during the  execution.  Some orders have been filed before us by the applicant- respondent, passed by this Court in CMP No.270 of 1979 dated 6.2.1979  (Krishna Murari Lal Sehgal vs. State of Punjab), CMP Nos.19534-35 of  1981 in CA Nos.1298-99 of 1969 dated 9.11.1981 (Krishna Murari Lal  Sehgal vs. State of Punjab) as also the orders passed in CMP No.36232 of  1983 in Civil Appeal No.1390 of 1978 dated 13.9.1984 (Baldev Raj Chadha  vs. Union of India & Ors.), in support of the contention that the interest can  be granted by the executing court even if the decree does not suggest  grant of any interest.  We have carefully seen all the orders.  None of the  orders is applicable to the controversy involved regarding the interest.  It  cannot be said from any of the orders that this Court had taken a view that  the interest can be so granted by the executing court even if the same has  not been granted by the court passing the decree.  On the other hand it has  been held by this Court in Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. &  Anr. [(1996) 5 SCC 728] that such grant of interest is not possible.  The  Court observed: "It is a well settled legal position that an executing court cannot  travel beyond the order or decree under execution.  It gets  jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the  procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC.  In view of the fact  that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the  arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of  his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law.   That having been done and the court having decided the  entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- and  odd, the question that arises is whether the executing court  could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not  part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in  payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution?  In our  view, the executing court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the  order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order."

5.      Our attention was invited to the Trial Court judgment wherein  reliance was placed on the reported decision of Punjab and Haryana High  Court in The State of Punjab v. Radha Ram & Anr. [1990 (2) SLR 588.   In this case a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  has taken a view that even if the decree is silent upon the interest, the  executing court can grant it in case of money claims.  In this case the  learned Single Judge had relied on the decision of the Full Bench between  the parties in Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barnala [1983 PLR  21].  Three paragraphs are quoted from that decision.  All the three  paragraphs only pertain to the right of a person, whose termination had  been set aside, to get the arrears of salary and allowance.  From the three  paragraphs atleast it does not seem that the Full Bench had, in any  manner, held that even where there is no interest granted in the decree,  still the executing court would have the power to grant the interest.   However, the learned Single Judge, after quoting the three paragraphs in  para 6 observed that the executing court, while calculating the relief of past  emoluments would have the powers under Section 34 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1973 and would be in a position to grant interest.  In our opinion  this cannot be a correct reading of the Full Bench Judgment or even the  judgment in Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1977 SC  1233] which was relied upon by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana  High Court.  From the three paragraphs quoted above in the judgment it  has been held by the Full Bench that: "Once the relief for quashing the order of termination has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

granted, or a declaratory decree has been passed to the  similar effect, it necessarily follow that the employee in the eye  of law continues to be in service and as a necessary  consequences thereof would be entitled to all the emoluments  flowing from that status."

We have also seen the aforementioned judgment in Krishna Murari Lal’s  case (supra) which is also indirectly relied upon by the learned Single  Judge.  We do not find any such proposition in that judgment.  From this it  is clear that the Trial Court, though was justified in relying upon the  aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and  Haryana High Court, that judgment itself does not give out the correct law.   In that view, the Trial Court’s order was patently incorrect and the order of  the High Court confirming the same in the Revision was also incorrect and  it is for this reason that this Court by its order dated 14.8.2003 set aside  that order. 6.      It is contended in this application that the applicant-respondent  herein did not or could  not remain present at the time of hearing due to  illness.  However, since a complaint was made that he was not heard and  the judgment was passed behind his back that we heard the applicant- respondent in detail.  In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to review the  order already passed by this Court on 14.8.2003 and we maintain that  order.   7.      In view of the above the Interlocutory Application filed by the  applicant-respondent is dismissed.  However, since the applicant- respondent has appeared in person, there will be no order as to costs.