Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 262 (HP)

MAHINDRA & COMPANY v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-08-29

SURJIT SINGH

body2006
JUDGEMENT Surjit Singh, Judge: There had been some agreement between Mahindra & Company, hereinafter referred to as decree holder, and the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Forest), whereby Maple Shuttle Blocks were agreed to be supplied by the State of Himachal Pradesh and other judgment debtors to the decree holder. It appears that the judgment debtors did not supply the entire agreed quantity of the Shuttle Blocks. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. The Arbitrator gave an award that the decree holder was entitled to the supply of 109.803 cubic meters of Maple Shuttle Blocks. The award was submitted to this Court and was made rule of Court by this Court, vide decree dated 18.6.1984 and it was ordered that 109.803 cubic meters Maple. Shuttle Blocks would be supplied to the decree holder by the judgment debtors within one year. On the asking of the judgment debtors, the period was extended twice, initially by one year and then up to 31.12.1986. The judgment debtors supplied only 11.427 cubic meters of Maple Shuttle Blocks out of 109.803 cubic meters. On 22.12.1989 the present execution petition was filed by the decree holder. 2. The judgment debtors have filed reply-cum-objections. It is alleged that the execution petition is barred by time, because the date of decree is 8.6.1984. Another objection raised by the judgment debtors is that the Honble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. vs. Union of India and others, (AIR 1997 SC 1228) has imposed ban on felling of trees and because of this ban the Shuttle Blocks of Maple timber cannot be supplied. 3. The decree holder has filed reply to the objections in which it is alleged that the period of limitations to be reckoned from the date on which the time granted to the judgment debtors for supply of the Blocks expired, i.e. 31.12.1986, and when the period is counted from that date, the execution petition, which was filed on 22.12.1998, is within time, because admittedly the limitation is twelve years, per Article 136 of the Limitation Act. 4. 4. As regards the second objection, it is stated that the judgment debtors are bound to supply the Maple Shuttle Blocks in accordance with the decree and in case they feel that supply of the Blocks has become impossible, they should pay damages to the tune of rupees fifteen lacs, on account of loss sustained by the decree holder. 5. The decree holder has filed a supplementary affidavit, in Para 12 of which it has been stated that a notice, under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served upon the judgment debtors calling upon them to supply the Shuttle Blocks in terms of the decree or to pay damages and that in response to that notice Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh held meetings with the functionaries of the decree holder and such meetings took place on different dates, the last one on 4.1.1990, but due to indifferent attitude of the judgment debtors, nothing came out of those meetings. 6. In their counter affidavit to this supplementary affidavit, the judgment debtors, while replying to Para 12, have started that the representatives of the decree holder did not agree to the proposal of the Government to settle the issue by accepting rupees two lacs as compensation, because the State was unable to perform its part of the contract due to non-availability of the maple trees in this forests. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the decree was passed on 8.6.1984 and one year time was given to the judgment debtors to comply with the decree. On the application of the judgment debtors themselves, the time for complying with the decree was extended by one year and again on being approached by the judgment debtors, this Court extended time for compliance of the decree upto 31.12.1986. Article 136 of the Limitation Act prescribes twelve years time limit for execution of a decree (other than a decree grating mandatory injunction). The limitation for execution of decree begins to run when the decree becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or delivery of any property to be made at certain date, when default in making the payment or delivery, in respect of which execution is sought, takes place. The limitation for execution of decree begins to run when the decree becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or delivery of any property to be made at certain date, when default in making the payment or delivery, in respect of which execution is sought, takes place. In the present case one year time was initially given to the judgment debtors for compliance of the decree and it was extended twice on the request of the judgment debtors and the last date based on the second extension of time for compliance of the decree was 31.12.1986.lt was on 31.12.1986 the last date fixed for the compliance of the decree by the judgment debtors that default in delivery of the Blocks took place and so the limitation is to be counted from this date. When counted from this date, i.e. 31.12.1986, the execution petition is within time, because it was filed on 22.12.1998. 9. It was not disputed during the course of hearing that there is a total ban on the felling of green trees in the State of Himachal Pradesh, especially in respect of the trees standing in government forests. Therefore, it can legitimately be presumed that it has become difficult for the state to comply with the decree, but that does not mean that the decree has become totally inexecutable. The judgment debtors can procure the Shuttle Blocks from other sources and supply the same to the judgment debtors. 10. However, during the course of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the decree holder stated that the decree holder would be satisfied if instead of delivering the Shuttle Blocks, in terms of the decree, the judgment debtors paid the amount of rupees two lacs, which according to Para 12 of their counter affidavit they were prepared to pay, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when the judgment debtors offered to pay the aforesaid amount of rupees two lacs. Though specific date when the judgment debtors offered to pay rupees two lacs is not mentioned in Para 12 of the counter affidavit of the judgment debtors nor has the decree holder itself given such a date, yet from certain dates mentioned in Para 12 of the counter affidavit of the judgment debtors nor has the decree holder itself given such a date, yet from certain dates mentioned in Para 12 of the supplementary affidavit of the decree holder, it can be presumed that such an offer was made on or before 4.1.1990, because in the said Paragraph it is stated that meetings for negotiation after service of notice, under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had taken place between the decree holder and the Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 6.12.1989, 17.12.1989 and 4.1.1990 and it is in response to this Para that the judgment debtors in their counter affidavit have stated that they had offered rupees two lacs as compensation. Therefore, the date of offer is assumed to be 4.1.1990, viz. The date on which last of the three meetings for settlement of the matter, had taken place. 11. The decree holders offer to accept rupees two lacs with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum in lieu of the delivery of the balance Maple Shuttle Blocks is quite reasonable and genuine. The judgment debtors, who offered to pay rupees two lacs in January, 1990, have utilized the aforesaid amount and, therefore, they cannot have nay logical objection to the payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, especially when the interest demanded is simple and not compound. 12. As a result of the above discussion, objections are dismissed. The judgment debtors are given the option to pay rupees two lacs with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from 4.1.1990, to the decree holder, within two months from today, failing which the decree for delivery of the remaining quantity of Maple Shuttle Blocks, i.e. 109.803 cubic meters, shall be executed against them.