The Union of India vs S.P. Construction

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This is a review application arising out of the order of this Court dated September 05, 2013. This Court applied the dicta of the Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court and held that the precedent in State of Haryana and Others Vs. S.L. Arora and Company, did not apply to the facts of the present case and opinion was expressed on a legal issue that interest till date of the award being in the nature of damages becomes the principal amount itself and, therefore, future interest is payable on the said amount of interest as well. The Court applied the law in Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Roshni Devi and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) Vs. Harbans Singh Tuli and Sons Builders (P) Ltd., ; U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Three Circles, and Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A., and upheld the order of the learned Executing Court. In the present review application, the applicant seeks a change of opinion which is not permissible reason to re-open the case on merits.

Then it remains to be examined whether the statement made by Major Sudha K.V., Garrison Engineer (presently promoted as Lt. Col.) before the executing court is binding or not. The same reads as follows:-

"Statement of Major Sudha K.V., Garrison Engineer (Air Force Adampur) Punjab We have already processed the matter with the Government of India seeking approval/sanction to make payment as per order of this court in this case. We are making all out efforts to get the sanction and vigorously pursuing the matter. We hope that payment will be made within four months. Hence, four months time may be granted and the account already attached may be released.

RO & AC

Sd/- Sudha KV

Sd/-

(Ms. Sonali Singh)

CJJD/3.2.2014/CHD"

On the basis of this statement, the respondent-claimant made the following statement:-

"Statement of Sh. Satpal Singh, Partner of M/s. SP Constructions, 571, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

I have heard the above statement and agree for the proposal as given by Judgment Debtor. I have no objection if the time is granted by the Court for making the payment as stated above to the Decree Holder. The present execution may be adjourned sine die or may be consigned to record with liberty to file/revive the same after the expiry of four months period as sought by the Judgment Debtor. I have no objection if the account already attached is released from attachment.

RO & AC

Sd/- Satpal Singh

Sd/-

(Ms. Sonali Singh)

CJJD/3.2.2014/CHD"

On the statement of both parties, the account attached in execution was released and the yoke lifted. On the basis of these statements, the Court passed the following order on February 03, 2014 of which the relevant extract is as follows:-

Since, the JD has admitted that liberty and has agreed to make the payment within four months, therefore, the present execution is allowed to be consigned to the record room with the liberty to the DH to revive the same as and when the need arise i.e. if payment of the decreetal amount is not made by the JD. The JD will be bound by the statement so recorded today in the Court and the JD will not be at the liberty to withdraw from the statement so made in the Court. In view of the statement of present execution is ordered to be consigned to the record room assuming that the JD will make the payment within four months. The DH will be at liberty to revive the same as and when needs arise.

In view of this order, the petitioner was bound by the statement. When this petition was filed, Major Sudha K.V. Failed to disclose the aforesaid statements and there consequences. Therefore, this Court called for an affidavit of Major Sudha K.V. to explain her conduct. The affidavit has been filed. The reason furnished is in the circumstances which resulted from a communication gap between Dr. Ashwinie Bansal, the principal arguing counsel who was kept away from work during the relevant period on account of the passing away of his father and his non-availability for this reason. Mr. Sehgal submits that this may be reason enough but that does not unburden Major Sudha K.V. to have taken greater care and caution in the circumstances while dealing with the associate counsel in place of Mr. Bansal till the filing of the petition. To that extent Mr. Sehgal may be right in his submission but I would not hang the case on that peg. The lady has apologised to the court in the affidavit for failing to apprise the court of the statements made before the executing court but there does not appear to be a contumacious withholding of relevant facts since she had on her part asked for approvals and sanction from the Government of India in order to satisfy the decree. The approvals and sanction never came. None has been produced even today at the hearing.

No ground is made out to review the order.

The review application stands dismissed.