Krishna Rice Mills and Another vs Food Corporation of India and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a civil revision filed by M/s Krishna Rice Mills and another against the Food Corporation of India and has been directed against the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, who dismissed the application of the petitioners u/s 151 read with Section 152 C.P.C.

The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner-Respondent Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called ''Corporation'') filed civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,66,938.22 and also claimed future interest @ 12%. According to the petitioners, the trial Judge i.e. Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 10.1.1992 awarded a money decree for the sum of Rs. 2,83,710/- with costs. However, the Corporation was granted future interest @ 6-1/2% instead of 12%.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that 12% interest which has been written in the original record dated 10.1.1992 is nothing but a forgery so as to interpolate the figures 6-1/2% to 12%. The stand of the Corporation is that interest was charged @ 12% and it has been awarded @ 12% and that is the reasons that in the decree-sheet the rate of interest as 12% has been mentioned instead of 6-1/2%. Meeting the argument on his adversary, the counsel for the petitioners Mr. Jain submits that the awarded rate of interest is 6-1/2% as is clear from the certified copy which was supplied to the petitioners. Moreover the digits ''1'' and ''2'' making ''12'' is a forgery as is evident with naked eye in the judgment dated 10.1.1992. The learned counsel Mr. Jain submits that decree is to follow as per Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the adjudication on the part of Additional Senior Sub Judge was that he wanted to grant future interest @ 6-1/2% the decree-sheet could not be contradicted to the awarded amount of interest.

I have gone through the original records of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. There is a prima facie interpolation at the relevant space making to read as 12% instead of 6-1/2%. The truth must come out. In first part of the judgment of the appellate court, which was pronounced on 1.10.1994, it has been written by the appellate court that the suit of the plaintiff had been decree with costs and plaintiff had been awarded future interest @ 6-1/2%. Meaning thereby that the appellate Court while passing the judgment dated 1.10.1994 had taken the facts either from the lower Court''s record or from the judgment of the lower Court it means that at that time also in the judgment of the trial Court the figure was ''6-1/2%'' instead of ''12%''. In these circumstances it has to be taken that the trial Court when awarded the future interest, it awarded @ 6-1/2% and not 12%.

Section 2(2) of the CPC defines ''decree'', which means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that decree is nothing but is a formal expression of the judgment which adjudicates the controversy between the parties. Of course, decree is executable but decree follows the judgment and the foundation of the decree is judgment itself vide which the rights of the parties are adjudicated finally. There is a force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The word "Judgment" has also been defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down that the statement given by the Judge of the grounds or a decree of order is "judgment". Since it is clear that when the trial Court awarded future interest it only awarded interest @ 6-1/2% and not 12% though in the decree-sheet it was mentioned inadvertently as 12%. There is a direct conflict between the judgment and decree and, therefore, the foundations of the judgment are to be preferred than that of the decree itself. The trial judge has not properly appreciated in dismissing the application of the petitioners when they prayed for a right cause that the Corporation should be awarded future interest @ 6-1/2% because the awarding of future interest is in the discretion of the Court as to at which rate it was to be granted. Be that as it may, the present revision is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur is hereby set aside and declaration is given that the decree-holder shall be entitled to future interest @ 6-1/2% as was awarded by the trial Court. The rest of the terms of the judgment and decree of the trial Court and that of the appellate court are not disturbed.

No order as to costs in the present revision.