PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.versusHARVINDER SINGH

                         (2008) 3 S.C.R. 324


A                   PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.
                                  v
                       HARVINDER SINGH
        (IA No. 1 of 2007 in Civil Appeal No.6421 of 2003)
                       FEBRUARY 22, 2008
B
            (S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)

         Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 21 - Grant of interest
    on decreetal amount - By executing Court - Such grant not
c   suggested in decree - Award of interest confirmed by High
    Court - Denied by Supreme Court - Application for
    reconsideration as the order of Supreme Court was passed
    without hearing the affected party- Held: Review of the matter
    not called for, since grant of such interest by the executing
    court not permissible.
D
       The respondent filed an application during execution          ~·

  proceedings claiming interest on the decreetal amount
  from the date of the decree. Trial Court allowed the same
  holding that interest can be allowed by executing court
E even if the decree does not suggest grant of any. The order
  was upheld by High Court in revision. In appeal to this
  Court, order of executing Court granting interest was set
  aside. Hence the present application by the respondent
  on the ground that he could not attend the proceedings
F in the appeal before this Court on account of illness, and
                                                                          , r
  thus the order was passed without granting him
  reasonable opportunity of being heard.
         Dismissing the application, the Court
         HELD: 1. Interest cannot be granted by the executing
G
    court, if the same has not been granted by the court
    passing the decree. The trial court judgment was based
    on a Judgment which does not give out the correct law.
    In that view, the trial court's order was patently incorrect
                                                                            ....
H                                324
           PUNJAB STATE AND ORS. v. HARVINDER SINGH                325
                      [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

         and the order of the High Court confirming the same in          A
         the Revision was also incorrect and it is for this reason
         that this Court set aside that order. [Paras 4 and 5]
         [327 -D, E; 329-C]
              2. A complaint was made that he was not heard and
         the judgment was passed behind his back that this Court         B
         heard the applicant- respondent in detail. It is not
         necessary for this Court to review the order already
         passed by this Court. [Para 6] [329-D, E]
              Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of UP and Anr. (1996)5
         sec 728- relied on.
                                                                         c
              Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v State of Punjab AIR 1977
         SC 1233- distinguished.
              The State of Punjab v. Radha Ram and Anr. 1990(2) SLR
         588; Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barna/a 1983 PLR D
    --   21- disapproved.
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. N0.1 OF 2007
         In Civil Appeal No.6421 of 2003.
              From the final Order dated 12.01.2002 of the High Court    E
         of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Revision Petition No.
         178 of 2001.

              Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and Ajay Pal for
,, *     the Appellants.
                                                                         F
              Harvinder Singh (Respondent-in-person)
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This is an Interlocutory Application
         in Civil Appeal No.6421 of 2003 which was earlier disposed of G
         by this Court consisting of Justice S. Rajendra Babu (As His
         Lordship then was) and Justice G.P. Mathur. This Court passed
•-       the following order in that appeal which was filed by the State of
         Punjab
              ''L2ave granted                                            H
    326       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2008] 3 S.C.R.


A         In the light of decision of this Court in Rameshwar Dass
          Gupta vs. State of U .P. & Anr. ((1996) 5 SCC 728], order
          made by the Executing Court granting interest shall stand
          deleted and in other respects the order made by the
          Executing Court, as affirmed by the High Court is
B         maintained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

         This appeal was filed against the order of the Punjab and
  Haryana High Court wherein the Hig!l Court in its revisional
  jurisdiction had dismissed the revision filed by the State and its
  three other officers against the order passed by the Civil Judge
c (Junior Division), Ludhiana. By its order the Trial Court had
  allowed the application filed by the applicant herein, Harvinder
  Singh. In his application, which was filed during the execution,
  the applicant had pointed out that the net amount due to him as
  a decree-holder was Rs.4550/- and he was also entitled to the
D interest from the date of decree till the amount was paid. Learned
  Trial Judge observed that the decree was passed on 27.11.1990           .....
  but there was no mention of interest in the relief clause. The
  Trial Court relied on a decision reported in State of Punjab v.
  Radha Ram & Ors [1990 (2) SLR 588] and held on the basis
E thereof  that the executing court had power to award interest from
  the date of decree till the amount is realized, though there is no
  such mention of interest in the decree. In the result the Trial Court
  awarded 12% interest from the date of decree till the date of
  realization. Thus the execution application was allowed.
F         2. As has been stated earlier, the Revision Petition against
                                                                            ,. '
    this order was dismissed in limine by the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court.
       3. When the matter came up before this Court at the
  instance of the State and its three other officers, the same was
G
  disposed by the order which we have quoted above. The
  applicant herein, therefore, filed the present application on the
  ground that before passing the order no reasonable opportunity                  ~



  was given to the applicant-respondent of being heard and the                        •
  order was not correct as there were other arguable points in
H
               PUNJAB STATE AND ORS. v. HARVINDER SINGH                 327
                          [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
~'i-

             connection with the interest on the arrears. It was stated that A
             though the applicant was respondent in Civil Appeal No.6421
             of 2003, he did noUcould not appear on account of certain illness.
             It is on this basis that the aforementioned order dated 14.8.2003,
             passed by this Court, came to be assailed. A notice was issued
             to the State Government on the application and the parties were B
             heard by us.
                   4. The applicant-respondent argued himself and
             contended before us that on some earlier occasions this Court
             had granted interest during the execution. Some orders have
             been filed before us by the applicant-respondent, passed by      c
             this Court in CMP No.270 of 1979 dated 6.2.1979 (Krishna
             Murari Lal Sehgal vs. State of Punjab), CMP Nos.19534-35 of
             1981 in CA Nos.1298-99 of 1969 dated 9.11,.1981 (Krishna
             Murari Lal Sehgal vs. State of Punjab) as also the orders passed
             in CMP No.36232 of 1983 in Civil Appeal No.1390 of 1978 D
             dated 13.9.1984 (Baldev Raj Chadha vs. Union of India & Ors.),
             in support of the contention that the interest can be granted by
             the executing court even if the decree does not suggest grant of
             any interest. We have carefully seen all the orders. None of the
             orders is applicable to the controversy involved regarding the E
             interest. It cannot be said from any of the orders that this Court
             had taken a view that the interest can be so granted by the
             executing court even if the same has not been granted by the
             court passing the decree. On the other hand it has been held by
I       A.   this Court in Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr. F
             [(1996) 5 sec 728] that such grant of interest is not possible.
             The Court observed:
                  "It is a 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 G
                  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 H
    328        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 3 S.C.R.
                                                                            ,..~




A         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
B         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."

          5. Our attention was invited to the Trial Court judgment
  wherein reliance was placed on the reported decision of Punjab
c and Haryana High Court in The State of Punjab v. Radha
  Ram & Anr. [1990 (2) SLR 588. In this case a learned Single
  Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a view
  that even if the decree is silent upon the interest, the executing
  court can grant it in case of money claims. In this case the learned
D Single Judge had relied on the decision of the Full Bench
  between the parties in Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee,                  ...
  Barnala [1983 PLR 21]. Three paragraphs are quoted from
  that decision. All the three paragraphs only pertain to the right
  of a person, whose termination had been set aside, to get the
E arrears    of salary and allowance. From the three paragraphs
  atleast it does not seem that the Full Bench had, in any manner,
  held that even where there is no interest granted in the decree,
  still the executing court would have the power to grant the interest.
  However, the learned Single Judge, after quoting the three
F paragraphs     in para 6 observed that the executing court, while         "
  calculating the relief of past emoluments would have the powers
  under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 and
  would be in a position to grant interest. In our opinion this cannot
  be a correct reading of the Full Bench Judgment or even the
  judgment in Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab
G
  [AIR 1977 SC 1233] which was relied upon by the Full Bench
  of Punjab and Haryana High Court. From the three paragraphs
  quoted above in the judgment it has been held by the Full Bench
  that:

H         "Once the relief for quashing the order of termination has
      PUNJAB STATE AND ORS. v. HARVINDER SINGH                     329
                 [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

         been granted, or a declaratory decree has been passed            A
         to the similar effect, it necessarily follow that the employee
         in the eye of law continues to be in service and as a
         necessary consequences thereof would be entitled to all
         the emoluments flowing from that status."
          We have also seen the aforementioned judgment in                8
    Krishna Murari Lal's case (supra) which is also indirectly relied
f
    upon by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any such
    proposition in that judgment. From this it is clear that the Trial
    Court, though was justified in relying upon the aforementioned
    judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana        C
    High Court, that judgment itself does not give out the correct
    law. In that view, the Trial Court's order was patently incorrect
    and the order of the High Court confirming the same in the
    Revision was also incorrect and it is for this reason that this
    Court by its order dated 14.8.2003 set aside that order.              D
          6. It is contended in this application that the applicant-
    respondent herein did not or could not remain present at the
    time of hearing due to illness. However, since a complaint was
    made that he was not heard and the judgment was passed
    behind his back that we heard the applicant-respondent in detail.     E
    In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to review the order
    already passed by this Court on 14.8.2003 and we maintain
    that order.
         7. In view of the above the Interlocutory Application filed by   F
    the applicant-respondent is dismissed. However, since the
    applicant-respondent has appeared in person, there will be no
    order as to costs.
    K.K.T.                      Interlocutory Application dismissed.
                                                                          G