LexPUNJAB STATE AND ORS. versus HARVINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(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) B FEBRUARY 22, 2008 (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 D court not permissible. 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 G HELD: 1. Interest cannot be granted by the executing 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 B the judgment was passed behind his back that this Court 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 c sec 728- relied on. 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 D 588; Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barna/a 1983 PLR -- 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 c three other officers against the order passed by the Civil Judge (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 executi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.