The State of Punjab and others vs U.S. Naurath, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Principal Training School, Excise and Taxation Department Patiala

A.L. Bahri, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.1986, passed by Sub Judge 2nd Class, Patiala, in execution proceedings allowing Rs. 200/- as costs of the execution and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount of Rs. 4916.95.

U.S Naurth, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, filed a suit for declaration that with-holding of his pay and increments was illegal. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, on appeal, the suit was decreed. The order with-holding of his arrears of pay and increments was declared to be illegal and he was allowed costs of both the Courts. Since the arrears of pay were not paid to him in spite of the decree, he took out execution. During execution proceedings, the decretal amount was paid along with the costs of the suit on 28.2.1986. However, the decree holder insisted for costs of the execution as well as interest on the arrears of pay etc as the judgment debtors did not pay the same in time. The impugned order was passed allowing the costs and the interest.

Shri S.P. Soni, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner State of Punjab, has argued that the executing Court could not allow interest on the amount due to the decree holder as no future interest was allowed in the decree itself. He has also argued that the executing Court could not allow costs of Rs. 200/ of the execution. As for as first point is concerned, there is merit. Section 34 of the CPC reads as under:-

(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.

(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit thereof shall not lie.

A bare reading of the aforesaid provisionals leads to the conclusion that if future interest is not allowed in the decree, if would be deemed to have been refused. That being the position, the executing Court could not go beyond decree to allow interest on the amount found due. In this respect, reference may be made to the decision of Bhandari, J. in Firm Daulat Ram Vidya Parkash v. Sodhi Gurbaksh Singh AIR (36) 1949 East Punj. 213. While commenting upon the provisions of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was observed as under:-

......that section confers discretionary powers on a Court to allow or not to allow future interest on the amount awarded in the decree. Sub-section (2) declares that where the decree does not provide for interest it will be deemed to have been refused. Where the personal decree passed is completely silent with respect to the payment of future interest, the claim for the grant of future interest must be rejected, specially when it is clear that the Court had actually decided to disallow the future interest.

As for as the grant of costs of the execution proceedings is concerned, the trial Court was justified in allowing the same. The suit was decreed in appeal on 11.8.1983 where as the amount due was paid after the present execution was filed on 9.9.1985. Thus, the executing Court was fully justified in awarding the costs of the execution to the decree holder.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is partly accepted, the order of the executing Court is modified. It is affirmed to the extent of payment of Rs. 200/- as costs of the execution whereas it is set aside with respect to the payment of interest on the decretal amount. No costs.