27 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

RAMESHWAR DASS GUPTA Vs STATE OF U P

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: SLP(C) No.-016335-016335 / 1996
Diary number: 67314 / 1996


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAMESHWAR DASS GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   657

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.L.Hansaria           Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Majmudar B.D.Agarwal, Sr.  Adv. and Vinay Garg, Adv. with him for the Petitioner                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: Rameshwar Dass Gupta V. State of U.P & Anr.                          O R D E R      This   special leave  petition arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court made in Civil Revision  No. 541/96  on April  24, 1996. The admitted position is that the order of removal of the petitioner from service was  set aside by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal directed as under :      "The petition  is  partly  allowed.      The O.P.  No. 1  and 2 are directed      to consider the confirmation of the      petitioner  on  Group  1  post  and      consequent promotion  to  Class  II      and Class  I post  from the date on      which his  junior Sri Ram Niwas was      promoted  to  such  post  with  all      consequential      benefits      of      seniority,  salary,  pension  etc.,      arising therefrom."      In execution  thereof, as per the rules, the petitioner laid execution petition under Order 21 Rule 1, CPC read with clause [5]  of the  Tribunal’s Rules,  On a  certificate for recovery of the dues under the order. The executing court in the impugned  order dated  December 12, 1995, in addition to

2

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

the  salary,   gratuity  and  pension  in  a  total  sum  of Rs.1,97,575.32, awarded  interest at  124 per annum from the date of  the execution  till date  of the order which worked out to  the sum of Rs.1,46,205/-. The respondents challenged the legality thereof only in respect of the direction to pay the interest  at 12%. In the revision, the High Court in the impugned order held that the executing Court had no power to enlarge the  decree. The  decree of  the Tribunal  does  not grant  payment   of  interest   and,  Wherefore,  the  order directing payment of interest was without jurisdiction. Thus this special leave petition.      It is contended for the petitioner that though normally the executing  Court cannot  grant interest,  in view of the unreasonable stand  taken by the judgment-debtors in denying the legitimate  claims of  the petitioner and for prolonging the case  unreasonably for  long time,  the executing  Court must be  held to  have jurisdiction  to  grant  interest  in execution  of   the  decree.  He  also  contended  that  the revisional power  of the  High Court should be confined only to errors  which do  vitiate the  ultimate justice.  In this case, the  executing Court,  having regard  to the facts and circumstances  of   the  case,   has  done  justice  to  the petitioner. The  High Court,  therefore, was  not  right  in reversing the  order.  We  find  no  force  in  any  of  his contentions.      It is  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. It true that  the High  Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC but once it is held that the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, it is but the duty  of the  High Court to correct the same. Therefore, we do not find any illegally in the order passed by the High Court in  interfering  with  and  setting  aside  the  order directing payment of interest.      The special  leave petition  is accordingly  dismissed. Whatever be  the difference of amount due and payable to the petitioner, it is but the duty of the respondents to pay the same as  expeditiously as  possible but not later than three months from  the date  of the  receipt of  this  order.  The petitioner is  directed to  communicate this  order  to  the respondents.