In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5817 of 2008 Date of decision: August 19, 2009 State of Haryana .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Sukhdev & Co. .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 9.6.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar, whereby the respondent-decree holder was held entitled to interest. Arguments heard. The award was passed by the Arbitrator on 26.4.2002, which was made rule of the court by the learned District Judge, Hisar, vide its order dated 23.2.2005. The operative part of the order is as under :- “In view of the discussion made above and the findings under issue No.1, the present petition deserves to be dismissed being without any substance. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the records.” During execution, the award was satisfied. Subsequently, an application was filed on 21.3.2005, under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Re-conciliation Act, 1996, claiming interest, over which the learned District Judge, Hisar passed the following order on 9.6.2007 : “Heard, I agree with the counsel for the DH that in view of Section 31 (7)(b) which has already been interpreted in Civil Revision No.5817 of 2008 -2- Kataria Builders Versus State of H.P. 2004 (3) Arbitration Law Reporter 137, the DH is entitled to 18% interest. Thus, the respondent/State is directed to make the payment of interest as per calculation submitted by the DH by the next date i.e. 25.8.2007.” While preferring revision against the said order, Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana has urged that the executing court was wrong by awarding interest and could not pass any order beyond award. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted arguments advanced by the learned State counsel. On examination of the impugned order it reveals that the learned District Judge, Hisar, did not look into the matter in detail and did not determine if any amount of interest could be awarded even if no order to that effect was passed by the Arbitrator; or if, the respondent was entitled to any interest, then, even on subsequent application what amount of interest was reasonable to be awarded to the respondent. Under these circumstances, I accept the petition set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the learned District Judge, Hisar to determine the aforesaid points while passing speaking order. August 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge