Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panchayat And Rural Development ... vs M/S Anivet Health Care Through Its ... on 5 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37786
1 CR-302-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
CIVIL REVISION No. 302 of 2022
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS
Versus
M/S ANIVET HEALTH CARE THROUGH ITS PARTNER AJAY S/O
LATE SHRI SATYAPRAKASH BHARGAV
Appearance:
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ajay Bagadiya, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal,
Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on : 02.12.2025
Pronounced on : 05.01.2026
ORDER
With consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
This civil revision under Section 115 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the judgement debtor, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2022 passed in Execution Case No.EXAB/113/2018 by the 6 t h District Judge, Shajapur, whereby the objections raised by the petitioners u/S 47 of CPC seeking adjustment/recovery of alleged excess payment made towards pre-deposit have been rejected.
2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent, a small-scale Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06-01-2026 10:32:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37786 2 CR-302-2022 industry, supplied goods and services pursuant to a work order issued by the petitioners. Disputes arose regarding delayed payment, leading to proceedings before the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as 'MSMED Act'). The Council passed an award dated 12.08.2013 directing payment of principal amount of Rs.30,52,044/- alongwith compound interest at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India, with monthly rests, as mandated u/S 16 of the MSMED Act.
3. Challenges to the award in appeals under Section 34 and subsequent appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were dismissed, and the award attained finality. During pendency of challenges, the petitioners deposited 75% of the awarded amount as pre-deposit, which was calculated on a higher interest rate by mistake. The respondent withdrew the deposited amount in parts. Post-finality of the award, the respondent initiated execution proceedings claiming the full amount as per the statutory interest u/S 16 of the MSMED Act. The petitioners filed objections claiming over-payment and seeking adjustment/refund of excess amount.
4. The Executing Court rejected the objections, inter alia, observing that the decree does not contemplate recovery by the judgment-debtor from the decree-holder, and until the decree-holder deposits any excess amount in Court, the judgment-debtor cannot claim receipt thereof.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Executing Court erred in not appreciating that the correct interest rate u/S 16 of the MSMED Act was never adjudicated earlier, and recalculation shows excess payment, Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06-01-2026 10:32:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37786 3 CR-302-2022 entitling adjustment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or re- compute the awarded amount.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8 . The scope of inquiry in execution proceedings is well-settled. Section 47 of CPC empowers the Executing Court to determine all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree arising between the parties. However, the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot go behind the decree or question its correctness, legality or terms, unless the decree is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction (Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman [AIR 1970 SC 1475]; Harnandrai Badridas Vs. Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad [(1973) 2 SCC 467].
9. In the present case, the decree (award as confirmed) is for payment of a specific principal sum with compound interest at the statutory rate prescribed u/S 16 of the MSMED Act i.e., three times the RBI bank rate, compounded with monthly rests. The decree directs payment by the buyer (petitioners) to the supplier (respondent). It does not contemplate or provide for any counter- recovery or refund by the judgment-debtors from the decree-holder.
10. The pre-deposit made during appellate proceedings was a statutory requirement for entertaining the challenge and does not alter the terms of the decree. Withdrawal of the deposited amount by the decree-holder, even if resulting in receipt of an amount higher than what may be finally due upon correct computation, cannot be treated as satisfaction discharging the decree in part, Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06-01-2026 10:32:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37786 4 CR-302-2022 insofar as the decree mandates payment of the statutory compound interest till realisation.
11. The objection essentially seeks re-computation of the decretal amount by applying a different interest rate or adjusting prior payments in a manner contrary to the decree's mandate. This amounts to questioning or modifying the decree, which is impermissible in execution proceedings. The Executing Court rightly declined to entertain such a plea.
12. The reasoning of the Executing Court that the judgment-debtor cannot force the decree-holder to deposit excess amount or claim receipt without such deposit is sound and aligns with the principles governing execution. Acceptance of the petitioners' plea would enable judgment-debtors to indefinitely stall execution by raising claims of over-payment without the decree providing for the same.
13. No reliance can be placed on subsequent clarifications or calculations by the Facilitation Council or otherwise, as they do not bind the Executing Court or amend the decree. Although not directly attracted, the principles underlying Section 30 and 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reinforce that evidentiary presumptions and admissions in judicial proceedings (including prior calculations leading to deposits) cannot be lightly disregarded to re-open settled decrees in collateral proceedings.
14. In view of the above, no jurisdictional error or material irregularity is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 115 of CPC. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06-01-2026 10:32:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37786 5 CR-302-2022 order as to costs. The Executing Court shall proceed with the execution expeditiously.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06-01-2026 10:32:03