Joginder Singh Walia vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 29.3.1995 vide which the prayer of the petitioner for granting interest from the date of the suit onwards was declined by the executing Court.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Joginder Singh Walia was Superintendent Grade-1 of Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. He filed a money suit for a sum of Rs. 1,66,530.00 on account of arrears of salary. The break-up of this amount, according to the plaintiff was, Rs. 1,36,352/-by way of arrears of his salary with effect from 11.1.1958 to 14.2.1982, against the various posts upon which the plaintiff served. He also claimed interest amounting to Rs. 54,000/- on this amount of Rs. 1,36,352/- at the rate of 12%. In all he calculated the amount of Rs. 1,90,352/-. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that defendant paid Rs. 23,822/- as part payment about 8 months prior to the date of the institution of the suit (say as on 1.9.1982). Thus the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,66,530/- besides interest at the rate of 12%.

The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court and the operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under ;-

"In the final analysis, in view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the recovery of Rs. 33471 with proportionate costs. The plaintiff shall however be entitled to recover interest at this principal amount from the date of decree till its final realisation at the rate of 12% per annum simple interest. Decree-sheet be prepared and the file be consigned to the record" Announced in open court.

Sd/-

17.4.1985

Addl. Senior Sub

Judge, Patiala"

On the basis of this judgment, the decree-sheet was also drafted by the Presiding Officer.

Both, plaintiff and defendant, were not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and they preferred two appeals before the Court of District Judge, Patiala. Both the appeals were disposed of by Common Judgment. The appeal of the Board was partly allowed and it was observed as follows:-

"In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal of the Board succeeds only on the limited question of rate of future interest. The lower Court decree is amended only to this extent. With this modification, the appeal of the Board is dismissed, with no order as to costs".

The appeal of the plaintiff was also partly allowed and the appellate Court made the following observation:-

"The above discussion clearly shows that the appeal of the plaintiff is well merited. The same deserves to succeed and I allow the same in its entirety with costs except the rate of future interest which shall be 6% per annum. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in toto except the rate of future interest."

Now the dispute has arisen between the parties with regard to the correct interpretation of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court. The dispute in this case is with regard to the date of the commencement of interest. Interpretation given by the Decree-holder is that he is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the institution of the suit till the final payment is made by the Board. In support of his interpretation the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner relies upon the observation of the appellate Court where it was observed that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in toto except the rate of future interest. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the decree of the trial Court has merged in the decree of the appellate Court and according to the intention of the appellate Court the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% but this interest is to be calculated from the date of the filing of the suit because the suit in its entirety has been decreed by the first appellate Court.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the intention of the decree passed by the first appellate Court was to grant interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 6% but this rate has to be calculated from the date of the decree of the trial Court i.e. 17.4.1985 and if the interest is calculated from this date the entire dues have been paid to the plaintiff.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Once again I would like to refer to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and give my special emphasis upon paras No. 21 and 22 of the said judgment dated 14.10.1986.

As I stated above earlier, the trial Court only granted a partial money decree to the plaintiff. The defendant was not satisfied. The appeal of the defendant was allowed in part and it was observed by the first appellate Court in para No. 21 of its judgment that the lower Court decree is amended only to the extent that the Board shall pay future interest at the rate of 6%. This para No. 21 has to be read with para No. 22 which is being interpreted by Mr. Jain for the benefit of his client. If scrutinised interpretation is given to paras No. 21 and 22 of the judgment of the first appellate Court, it will be clear that the first appellate Court wanted to give a relief to the plaintiff by enhancing the suit amount to Rs. 1,36,352/-. So far as the interest part is concerned, the first appellate Court never said that plaintiff is entitled to the interest at 6% from the date of the filing of the suit till payment. Rather, it affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, in which it was observed by the trial Court that plaintiff shall get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the passing of the decree. Only the interest has been reduced from 12% to 6%.

In this view of the matter, the calculation made by the Board are correct and no interference is called for.

Resultantly, the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.