CR No. 2582 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2582 of 2010 Date of Decision : 22.4.2010 State of Haryana through Collector, Narnaul & others .......... Petitioners Versus The Palri Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.S. Ghangas, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.12.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Narnaul, vide which the petitioners have been directed to make further payment of Rs.23,784/- (Rupees twenty three thousand seven hundred and eighty four only) as the balance outstanding in execution of the decree. State had contested the execution application, by pleading therein, that the decree-holder could not claim compound interest, and further that the calculations furnished by the decree-holder did not depict the correct picture. This contention was based on the fact that the arbitrator had awarded interest for thirteen out of the fourteen work items, whereas amount due along with interest was awarded for work done under item No. 14. The contention, therefore, was that as part of the award was with regard CR No. 2582 of 2010 -2- to the interest, no future interest could, therefore, be levied on this amount as it amounted to compound interest. The learned executing Court did not accept this contention. The learned executing Court rightly held, that the award passed by the arbitrator is a decree. The learned executing Court, therefore, could not go behind the decree, especially when the petitioners had failed in their attempt to challenge the award in appeal. The decree was upheld by the learned lower appellate Court. The decree amount, therefore, was principal amount on which interest @ 8% was payable, as per the award passed by the learned arbitrator. The award passed by the learned arbitrator being a decree was enforceable as it is. It is well settled law, that the learned executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It was, therefore, not open to the petitioners to challenge the calculations furnished by the decree-holder which was as per award passed and upheld by the learned lower appellate Court. No ground for interference is made out. No merit. Dismissed. 22.4.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE