Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab vs Inspector Sham Nath on 20 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR654
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. Whether the executing Court can allow interest to the decree-holder on the benefits allowed by a Civil Court in a declaratory suit is the principal question arising for determination in this petition.
2. The undisputed facts are that the trial judge gave the following relief by judgment dated February 26, 1986 in favour of the respondent :-
"As result of my findings on the issues discussed above, plaintiff succeeds and his suit is decreed against the defendants with costs for declaration to the effect that the show cause notice dated 1-3-1984 issued by defendant No. 2 dispensing with, the departmental enquiry and thus proposing the punishment of dismissal or taking any action in the form of termination or dismissal order subsequent to this show cause notice and order of dismissal dated 18-3-1984 are illegal, unconstitutional and void and the plaintiff continues to be in service of the Police Department as Inspector of Police and that he is entitled to all the benefits and privileges attached to this post to-date. Decree sheet be prepared and the file be consigned to the Record Room."
The decree-holder took out execution. On April 24, 1987, he received a sum of Rs. 59,060 40 P. On the basis of the statement made by him on April 24, 1987, the execution application was dismissed as partly satisfied. Second execution application was filed on April 25, 1987. In this application, apart from other claims, an amount of Rs. 24,034-44 P. was claimed as interest. The claim for interest was objected to and it was alleged that the decree did not include any direction to pay interest. It was also alleged that the executing Court had to execute the decree as it stood and that the amount claims towards interest could not be awarded or directed to be paid by the judgment-debtor. The executing Court dismissed the objection petition giving rise to this revision petition.
3. The revision petition came up for hearing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice noticed that in two Single Bench decisions, i.e. Civil Revision No. 558 of 1988 (State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh), C. R. No. 553 of 1983 decided on April 5, 198'), and Civil Revision No. 944 of 1987 (Dr. K G. Chowdhri v. The State of Haryana) C. R. No. 944 of 1987. decided on July 25, 1988, this Court had taken a view that the executing Court could not allow interest on the amount due in execution proceedings A discordant note was recorded by a learned Single Judge in State of Punjab v. Radha Ram, 1988 12; R. S. J. 595. . In view of this conflict, the learned Chief Justice referred the matter to a larger Bench vide order dated October 29, 1991. That is how we are seized of the matter.
4. The decree which was passed by the trial Judge did not contain any direction to pay interest. In the execution proceedings, the decree holder claimed interest on the ground that the amount claimed by him was withheld by the petitioner and the decree-holder was entitled to claim interest. The plea of the petitioner that the executing Court could not go beyond the decree was not examined by die executing Court and the executing Court allowed the claim of the decree holder for payment of interest. Aggrieved against this direction, the petitioners have come up in revision petition. ; .
5. The view taken by the executing Court cannot be sustained. Indisputably, the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. It has to execute the decree as formulated by the Court passing it.; A relief which is not granted by the Court deciding the suit will be deemed to have been declined. The executing Court cannot assume jurisdiction to grant interest by resorting to the provisions of Section 34 of. the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not empower the executing Court to grant interest in executing proceedings which has not been granted by the Court deciding the suit. The matter has now been authoritatively settled by the apex Court in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 3116 of '990 (State of Punjab and Ors. v. Krishan Dayal Sharma) S. L. P. (C) No. 3116 of 1990., decided on August 27, 1990. In that case, the plaintiff, after his retirement from the Police Department sought a declaration from the Civil Court that he was entitled to promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from September 9, 1964. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but, on appeal, the first appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that he was entitled for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from September 9, 1964 and was also entitled to all benefits, rights and privileges which he would have drawn had he been promoted on September 9, 1964. The decree attained finality. In execution proceedings, the plaintiff claimed arrears of salary with effect from September 9, 1964 till his date of retirement, arrears of pension and other amounts. In addition, he claimed compound interest @ 12% per annum on the amount found due to him. The State of Punjab objected to the claim of the decree-holder for interest on the ground that the decree which was sought to be executed did not contain any direction for awarding interest to the decree-holder. The objection was repelled by the execution Court and the order was upheld in revision petition by this Court. In appeal before the apex Court, the apex Court held that in the absence of any direction in the judgment or decree which was under execution, it was not open to the executing Court to award interest. At this stage, it will be useful to reproduce the following observations of the apex Court : -
"The Executing Court is bound by the terms of the decree, it cannot add or alter the decree on its notion of fairness or justice. The right of the decree-holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. The Execution Court has referred to a number of decisions where interest had been granted on the arrears of salary and pension. The Execution Court failed to appreciate that in those decisions directions for payment of interest had been issued by the Court while granting relief for reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary or pension. None of those decisions relate to the grant of interest by the execution Court. No doubt the Courts have power to award interest on the arrears of salary or pension or other amount to which a Government servant is found entitled having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but that power cannot be exercised by the Execution Court in the absence of any direction in the decree. In this view the executing Court in the instant case acted in excess of its jurisdiction in awarding interest to the respondent-judgment debtor."
In the light of this authoritative pronouncement, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Radha Ram, 1988 (2) R. S. J. 595. cannot be sustained and the same is overruled. The view taken in Civil Revision No. 558 of 1989 (State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh)C.R. No. 558 of 1988, decided on April 5, 1989 and Civil Revision No. 944 of 1987 (Dr. K. G. Chowdhri v. The State of Haryana, C.R. NO. 944 of 1987 decided on July 25, 1988) is affirmed.
For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition succeeds, the order of the executing Court to the extent that the respondent is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld payment of salary is quashed, but there will be no order as to costs.