Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Parshad Dayal And Ors. vs The Hoshiarpur Central Co-Operative ... on 14 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR638
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 6th of September, 1978 whereby objection petition filed by the present petitioners concerning execution of the award dated 2nd of May, 1959 against Gaison Co-operative Dairy Farming Society and others (hereinafter referred to as the J. Ds.) was dismissed.
2. Notice in the petition was only issued to the respondents qua the awarded future interest.
3. In brief the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) filed application for execution of award dated 2nd of May, 1959 against the J. Ds. In that execution application the decree holder claimed an amount of Rs. 9767.47 P. In execution proceedings the property of the J. Ds. was attached and sold in auction in favour of Joga Singh for Rs. 3600/- and Banta Singh for Rs. 16,500/- Objection petition under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioners regarding auction sale. Before the objection petition could be decided the decree holder moved an application for amendment of the execution application so as to include in the claim, an amount of Rs. 11289.42 P as future interest upto 3rd of June, 1972 in addition to the claim of Rs. 9767.47 P. This application was allowed by the Senior Sub-Judge, vide, his order dated 29th of July, 1972. However, the question of limitation was kept open and its scope was to be decided at a later stage. Thereafter the J. Ds. moved another objection petition on 7th of October, 1972 in which apart from other objections like limitation when valuable rights had already accrued to the J. Ds. objection was also raised that there was no provision in the award that the decretal amount snail carry future interest till the payment of the said amount. In order to decide this question additional issue was framed by the executing Court ; Whether the decree holder is entitled to the interest till its realisation ? OPP OH". This issue was decided against the objector and in favour of the decree holder.
4. The learned counsel for the parties were heard
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no specific provision in the award dated 2nd of May, 1959 about payment of any future interest As such the executing Court has gravely erred in law in allowing amendment of the execution application and subsequently dismissing the objections filed on behalf of the present petitioners. Record of the executing Court was perused but the same does not contain at present the award dated 2nd of May, 1959. Photo stat copy of the same, however, was produced by Mr. B. S. Khoji, counsel for the decree holder, which was allowed to be placed on the file. The same has been perused and the counsel for the petitioners did not raise any objection for deciding this old petition on the basis of the copy produced by the counsel for the respondent-decree holder. Perusal of the copy of the award which was sought to be executed does not contain any provision for awarding any future interest in favour of the decree holder. All that it contains is that in case a total amount of Rs. 12567.47 P. is not paid by 2nd of June, 1959 by the J. Ds., the decree holder would be entitled to get the same executed through the Civil Court, and, realise that amount by the sales of property of the J. Ds It seems that the executing Court has not properly considered the award, and, wrongly construed that future interest had been awarded to the decree holder till the date of actual payment. The objection petition filed by the present petitioners in respect of future interest is accordingly allowed The finding of the executing Court on additional issue No. 1 cannot be legally sustained. The same is hereby reversed and this issue is decided against the Decree holder in favour of the J. Ds. Thus J. Ds. would not be liable to pay any future interest to the decree holder in this case. This petition is accordingly allowed.