1996 JTR(SC) 1337
1997 AIR(SC) 410 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3790 ; 1996 2 AllCJ 1418 ; 1997 1 APLJ 50 ; 1997 1 AWC 126 ; 1997 1 BC 13 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 373 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 373 ; 1996 DNJ 437 ; 1996 4 ICC 250 ; 1997 ISJ(Banking) 13 ; 1996 7 JT 657 ; 1996 2 LLN 925 ; 1996 87 RD 490 ; 1996 6 Scale 374 ; 1996 5 SCC 728 ; 1996 SCR 224 ; 1996 4 SCT 575 ; 1996 5 SLR 667 ; 1996 6 Supreme 640
1996(6) Supreme 640
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, B.L Hansaria and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Rameshwar Dass Gupta -Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16335/96
Decided on 27-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: B.D. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate and Vinay Garg, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court cannot step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.115, S.47, O.21 R.1
A) The Civil Procedure Code Sections O.21 R.1 and S.47 govern the execution of decrees, where an executing court is confined to the terms of the decree and lacks jurisdiction to grant interest if not expressly provided. Section 115 CPC empowers the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, ensuring that an executing court does not overstep its authority by adding to the monetary decree. This case invokes these provisions to scrutinize the legality of an order adding interest to the amount due under a Tribunal decree.
B) Key legal principles include that an executing court cannot enlarge the original decree or award interest unless expressly granted; the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 is to correct jurisdictional excesses; and the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevents an executing court from stepping beyond the four corners of the decree in a money claim.
Facts of the case:
A petitioner obtained a decree from an executing court for arrears of salary, gratuity, and pension along with an additional sum for interest at 12%. The respondents challenged only the interest component, leading to a revision before the High Court, which held that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to award interest as it was not part of the original Tribunal decree.
Findings of Court:
The executing court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding interest not provided in the decree; the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order; and any delay or unreasonable conduct by the judgment-debtors does not empower the executing court to grant interest afresh.
Issues:
Whether an executing court can grant interest in execution of a decree where interest is not part of the original decree; whether the High Courts revisional jurisdiction can rectify such jurisdictional overreach.
Ratio Decidendi:
An executing court is strictly limited to executing the decree as pronounced and cannot add elements such as interest not contemplated by the decree or the rules; any such addition is a jurisdictional error that the High Court must correct under Section 115 CPC.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the respondents are directed to pay the dues expeditiously within three months from the receipt of the order.
A) The Civil Procedure Code Sections O.21 R.1 and S.47 govern the execution of decrees, where an executing court is confined to the terms of the decree and lacks jurisdiction to grant interest if not expressly provided. Section 115 CPC empowers the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, ensuring that an executing court does not overstep its authority by adding to the monetary decree. This case invokes these provisions to scrutinize the legality of an order adding interest to the amount due under a Tribunal decree.
B) Key legal principles include that an executing court cannot enlarge the original decree or award interest unless expressly granted; the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 is to correct jurisdictional excesses; and the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevents an executing court from stepping beyond the four corners of the decree in a money claim.
Facts of the case:
A petitioner obtained a decree from an executing court for arrears of salary, gratuity, and pension along with an additional sum for interest at 12%. The respondents challenged only the interest component, leading to a revision before the High Court, which held that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to award interest as it was not part of the original Tribunal decree.
Findings of Court:
The executing court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding interest not provided in the decree; the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order; and any delay or unreasonable conduct by the judgment-debtors does not empower the executing court to grant interest afresh.
Issues:
Whether an executing court can grant interest in execution of a decree where interest is not part of the original decree; whether the High Courts revisional jurisdiction can rectify such jurisdictional overreach.
Ratio Decidendi:
An executing court is strictly limited to executing the decree as pronounced and cannot add elements such as interest not contemplated by the decree or the rules; any such addition is a jurisdictional error that the High Court must correct under Section 115 CPC.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the respondents are directed to pay the dues expeditiously within three months from the receipt of the order.
ORDER
This special leave petition arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court made in Civil Revision No. 541/96 on April 24. 1996. The admitted position is that the order of removal of the petitioner from service was set aside by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal directed as under :
"The petition is partly allowed. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the confirmation of the petitioner on Group 1 post and consequent promotion to Class II and Class I post from the date on which his junior Sri Ram Niwas was promoted to such post with all consequential benefits of seniority, salary, pension etc.arising therefrom."
2. In execution thereof, as per the-rules, the petitioner laid execution petition under Order 21 Rule 1, CPC read with clause (5) of the Tribunal s Rules, on a certificate for recovery of the dues under the order. The executing court in the impugned order dated December 12. 1995, in addition to the salary, gratuity and pension in a total sum of Rs.1,97,575.32, awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of the execution till date of the order which worked out to the sum of Rs. 1,46,205/-. The respondents challenged the legality thereof only in respect of the direction to pay the interest at 12%. In the revision, the High Court in the impugned order held that the executing Court had, no power to enlarge the decree. The decree of the Tribunal does not grant payment of interest and, therefore, the order directing payment of interest was without jurisdiction. Thus this special leave petition.
3. It is contended for the petitioner that though normally the executing Court cannot grant interest, in view of the unreasonable stand taken by the judgment-debtors in denying the legitimate claims of the petitioner and for prolonging the case unreasonably for long time, the executing Court must be held to have jurisdiction to grant interest in execution of the decree. He also contended that the revisional power of the High Court should be confined/only to errors which do vitiate the ultimate justice. In this case the executing Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has done justice to the petitioner. The High Court, therefore, was not right in reversing the order. We find no force in any of his contentions.
4. It is well settled legal position that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21, CPC. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to he computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- and odd, the question that arises is whether the executing Court could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution? In our view, the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It is true that the High Court normally exercises its revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC but once it is held that the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, it is but the duty of the High Court to correct the same. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with and setting aside the order directing payment of interest.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Whatever be the difference of amount due and payable to the petitioner, it is but the duty of the respondents to pay the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of the receipt of this Order. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondents.
Petition dismissed.
*********