Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 160 (PNJ)

Karnal Improvement Trust v. Krishna Devi

2008-01-22

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2008
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to the order, dated 22.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, dismissing objections, filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay interest @ 18%, in accordance with directions, issued by this Court in CWP No. 7506 of 1990, in terms of the judgment, passed in CWP No. 1893 of 1989. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned executing Court committed an error in holding that it could travel beyond the decree, if the petitioners prayer was accepted. It is submitted that the decree, under execution, is based, in essence, upon an order of this Court, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% till date. The learned executing Court, however, dismissed the objections, disregarding the aforementioned submissions. 3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that after the decision of the aforementioned writ petitions, Jaswant Rai, legal heir of Khushi Ram, the original allottee, along with other heirs, approached the petitioner for allotment. It, however, refused to allot the plot, compelling the respondents to file a civil suit, which was eventually decreed by directing the petitioner to allot a plot to the respondents. It is submitted that as the fault, if any, with respect to non-allotment of a plot lay with the petitioner, the respondents are not obliged to pay any interest. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree, under execution, does not provide for any interest and, therefore, the learned executing Court rightly dismissed the objections. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. It is true that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the relief, granted in a decree, under execution. However, in the present case, the allotment has been made to the respondents, in terms of the order, passed by this Court, wherein a specific direction was issued that allotment would be made subject to payment of consideration amount with 18% interest. In this view of the matter, the learned executing Court, before proceeding to direct the petitioner to allot a plot, should have taken into consideration the order of this Court and directed the respondents to pay interest. In this view of the matter, the learned executing Court, before proceeding to direct the petitioner to allot a plot, should have taken into consideration the order of this Court and directed the respondents to pay interest. The respondents, however, have vehemently asserted that as the petitioner delayed the allotment of the plot, without just cause, compelling the respondents to file a suit, no interest is payable. 6. Be that as it may, the learned executing Court should have decided the question of payment of interest, after taking into consideration all relevant facts, raised by the parties. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, and the order, dated 22.11.2006 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing Court for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 28.2.2008. They shall be at liberty to raise all such pleas, available to them, in accordance with law. The executing Court shall decide the objections within three months from the aforementioned date, and determine the date from which the respondents shall be obliged to pay interest @ 18%. Petition allowed.