IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5630 OF 2002

Union of India    …Appellant

Versus

M/s.Harbans Singh Tuli &  Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent

(With C.A. Nos. 5631/2002, 7314/2001  & 7315-7316/2001 )

O R D E R

1. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  order  dated

26th of November, 2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab

and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Civil  Revision  Petition

No.6189/2001 by which the civil  revision petition filed by

the Union of India was rejected.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

examined the materials on record including the impugned

order which had affirmed the order passed by the Executing

Court. It is not in dispute that against the judgment and

order passed by the learned Civil  Judge, Chandigarh, the

1

Union of India has filed an appeal before the appellate court

which has been registered as C.A. No. 31 of  2001. The said

appeal is still pending decision. Since there was no stay of

the execution proceeding for recovery of the money decree,

the  execution  case  proceeded  and  final  order  in  the

execution  case  was  passed.  In  the  execution  proceeding,

the executing court allowed the execution petition accepting

the  calculations  made  by  the  judgment-debtor  including

interest  over  interest  on  the  amount  awarded  by  the

Arbitrator.  Feeling  aggrieved,  a  Civil  Revision  Case  No.

6189/2001 was filed by the Union of India before the High

Court in which the core challenge was that whether interest

over  the  interest  was payable  or  not.  Be  that  as  it  may,

these appeals arise out of an order, as mentioned earlier,

passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Case No.6189 of

2001 in which the question raised was in respect  of  two

parts. The first part relates to payment of interest from 24th

of December, 1973 till 27th of August, 1996 and the second

part seems to be prima facie providing interest on the total

amount  from  27th of  August,  1996  till  payment.  The

2

Executing  Court  allowed  this  prayer  of  decree  holder

against which the aforesaid civil revision case was filed. The

High Court while refusing to interfere with the said order

made the following observations:-

“Whether or not this is legally permissible, is the subject matter of the appeal filed by the Union of India. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion  that it would be inappropriate for  this Court to make any comments on the merits of the controversy.”

On the aforesaid observations, the civil revision case

was dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties  and  considered  the  materials  on  record.  We  are

informed that till today the Civil Appeal No.31/2001 is still

pending before the Additional District Judge and, therefore,

the observation made by the High Court in the impugned

order would show that the question raised in the revision

case  would  very  well  be  adjudicated  in  the  appeal  now

pending before the appellate court.  

3

3. Such being the position, we are of  the view that no

interference  is  called  for  under  Article  136  of  the

Constitution  of  India.  Accordingly,  these  appeals  are

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

4. Before  parting,  we  make  it  clear  that  all  questions

raised by the Union of India in this revision petition shall be

allowed to be raised by them before the appellate court till

the  C.A.No.31/2001  is  pending.  If  any  order  has  been

passed staying the proceedings in appeal,  the same shall

stand vacated and appellate court is directed to dispose of

the appeal within six months from the date of supply of a

copy  of  this  order  positively  without  granting  any

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

……………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi, …………………….J. August 5, 2008. [Aftab Alam]

4