LexHARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. versus GULSHAN LAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 937 HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. A v. GULSHAN LAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3306 of 2009) MAY 6, 2009 B A [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - s.47 - Suit praying for decree of declaration in regard to entitlement to receive higher pay scales and a decree of mandatory injunction directing c release/payment of higher pay scales with interest from due date - Decreed by Civil Court - Execution petition moved by decree-holder- Objection to, by judgment-debtor - Held: On -> facts, the decree-holder legally would not have been entitled to the reliefs prayed for by it - However, as the decree passed D has attained finality, the Executing Court is directed to execute the decree strictly in terms thereof. Appellant-Board has two thermal power plants, one at Faridabad and the other at Panipat. Respondents were E employees at the Faridabad plant. Inter alia on the ~ premise that employees similarly situated and working at ; the Panipat plant were receiving higher salary, they filed suit praying for a decree of declaration in regard to their entitlement to receive higher pay scales and a decree of F mandatory injunction directing release/payment of higher pay scales in their favour with interest from the due date. The Trial Court decreed the suit on basis of the judgment and decree passed in Anil Kapoor case which ... ,)j was then pending in second appeal before the High G Court. The said second appeal was ultimately dismissed and the Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Subsequently, appellant filed appeal against the decree passed in the suit filed by respondents, which 937 H 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. ' A was dismissed on the ground of delay. Revision petition .-4· filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The decree passed in the suit filed by respondents attained finality. An execution petition in respect of the decree was filed. Appellant filed objection contending that a mere B declaratory relief having been passed in favour of the respondents-decree holder, they were not entitled to r_ arrears of pay. The objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court. Revision petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present c appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A decree should ordinarily be confined to the prayer made in the plaint. The respondents not only ~- D prayed for a declaration in regard to their entitlement to receive a higher scale of pay but also for a decree of mandatory injunction in their favour directing them to release/pay the said higher scales of pay. They had also prayed for grant of interest on the aforementioned E amount. The entitlement of the plaintiffs-respondents to receive the emoluments in the scales of pay mentioned therein and the date from which they had been working .\ was specified. The Trial Judge in no uncertain terms held ... that no interest shall be payable thereupon. Denial of F payment of interest is significant and the same leads to the conclusion that the court was conscious of the fact that not only plaintiffs-respondents were entitled to a declaration but also to a mandatory injunction. [Paras 14, 15 and 16) [945-D-G] G State of M.P. v Mangi/al Sharma, (1998) 2 SCC 510, ~- distinguished. UP. State Road Transport Corporation vs Assistant Commnr. of Police (Traffic) Delhi 2009 (2) SCALE 526, H referred to. HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED & 939 ANR. v. GULSHAN LAL & ORS. 2.1. For the purpose of allowing an objection filed on A behalf of a judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC, it was incumbent on him to show that the decree was ex facie nullity. For the said purpose, the court is precluded from making an indepth scrutiny as regards the entitlement of the plaintiff with reference to not only his claim made in B the plaint but also the defence set up by the judgment- debtor. As the judgment of the Trial Court could not have been reopened, the correctness thereof could not have been put to question. Also an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. If on a fair interpretation of the c judgment, order and decree passed by a court having appropriate jurisdiction in that behalf, the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff appear to have been granted, there is no reason as to why the Executing Court shall deprive -> him from obtaining the fru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.