K. RAJAMOULI versus A.V.K.N. SWAMY

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 03-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

K. RAJAMOULI 
A 
v. 
A.V.K.N. SWAMY 
MAY 3, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 
Special Leave Petition-Dismissal-Effect-Res judicata-Held-
Dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High C 
Court would not constitute res judicata when a special leave petition is filed · 
against the order passed in the Review Petition provided the review petition 
was filed prior to fl ling of special leave petition against the main judgment 
of t}Je High Court-But where after dismissal of the special leave petition 
against the main judgment a party files a review petition after a long delay D 
on the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of special leave 
petition such a filing of review w~uld be abuse of the process of the law-
Jf High Court allows the review petition filed after the special leave petition 
was dismissed after condoning the delay, it would be affront to the order of 
the Supreme Court-Jn the present case, review petition was filed well within. 
time and since the review petition was not being decided by the High Court, E 
the appellant filed the special leave petition against the main judgment of 
the High Court-Therefore, this Appeal arising out of special leave petition 
is maintainable. 
_ .i.. 
Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Am: v. K. Santhakumaran and 
Ors., [1998) 7 sec 386, relied on. 
F 
Sree Narayana Dharmsanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasanunda and Ors., 
(1997) SCC 78; State of Maharashtra and Am: v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, 
[1996) 3 SCC 463 and Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Am:, 
(2000) 6 sec 359, referred to. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 152 
Judgments, Decrees and orders-Errors arising therein-Power of court 
to correct-Scope of 
G 
Arbitrator-Award-Decree in terms of-Neither the arbitrators nor H 
473 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 3 S.C.R. 
A the trial court awarded pendente lite interest to the decree holder-Executing 
court also refused to grant pendente lite interest to the decree holder and 
the same was upheld by the High Court in the revision petition filed against 
the order of the executing court-Omission to grant pendente lite interest is · 
not accidental omission or mi;take-Therefore Trial Court and Appellate 
B Court has no power to award pendente lite interest under Section 152 of 
C.P.C. 
c 
Dwaraka Das v. State of MP. and Am:, (1999) 3 SCC 500, relied on. 
Janakiramma J~er v. Nilakanta Iyer, (1962) Suppl. 1 SCR 206, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5556-57 
of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in R.C.M.P. No. 20578/92 and R.C.M.P.S.R. No. 72740/92 in C.R.P. No. 
D 3077 of 1992. 
R. Venugopal Reddy, M. Purshotam and B.A. Ranganadhan for Mis. 
JBD and Co. for the Appellant. 
B. Kanta Rao, Ms. Sudha Gupta and Ms. Gunwant Dara for the 
E Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A dispute out of the partnership firm arose· between the appellant and 
the respondent. With the result, the same was referred to arbitrations. The 
F arbitrators appointed by the parties entered into the reference and appointed 
an Umpire. The Arbhrators, on 11. 7 .1987, gave an award for a sum of Rs. 
7,00,000 to be paid by the appellant herein to the respondent in three 
instalments. The respondent filed a suit against the arbitrators and the 
appellant. The said suit was numbered as Suit No. 1377/87. The prayer in the 
G suit was for a decree in terms of the arbitration award. The said suit was 
decreed for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000. It is relevant to mention here that the said 
decree did not provide for any pendente lite interest. Thereafter, the decree 
holder put the decree in execution. In the execution proceedings, the decree 
holder claimedpendente lite interest@ 24%. However, the claim of interest 
by the respondent-decree holder was rejected by the executing Court. The 
H decree holder, thereafter, filed Civil Revision Petition before the High Court 
--
K. RAJAMOULI v. A.V.K.N. SWAMY 
475 
against the order passed by the exe~uting Court. The said Revision Petition A 
was dismissed by the High Court on 18.9.1991. The decree holder filed 
Interlocutory Application No. 1954/91 before the trial Court for amendment of 
the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer in 
the said interlocutory application was to grant pendente lite interest. The trial 
Court, on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.