1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4522/2008 (Bhaskar Ramaji Thakre VERSUS Madhukar Damuji Bhiwapurkar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Rahul D. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V. Deo, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 07.08.2008 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the respondents-decree holders had wrongly calculated the decretal amount and had tried to misguide the Court. By the said application, the petitioner had also sought the dismissal of the execution proceedings with costs. According to the petitioner, in view of the award passed by the Arbitrators, the respondents had to receive an amount of 2 Rs.78,621.55 Ps. and Rs.41,141.72 Ps. from the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum from Diwali-1978. It is the case of the petitioner that the award passed by the Arbitrators was modified by the order passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 06.07.1995 and the petitioner were liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award i.e. 25.07.1993 till the amount was realised by the respondents. In view of this position, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur was not justified in holding that the interest was payable by the petitioners from Diwali-1978. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner for holding that the calculations made by the respondents were incorrect, was wrongly dismissed by the executing Court. I have perused the award passed by the Arbitrators and also the order passed by the 5th 3 Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 06.07.1995 accepting the award passed by the Arbitrators and making it the Rule of the Court. In fact, by the order dated 06.07.1995, 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur directed the drawing of the decree on the basis of award Exh.82. The 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, however, directed the petitioners to pay interest to the respondents @ 12% per annum from the date of the award, i.e. 25.07.1993 till the amount was realised by the respondents. It is apparent from the order dated 06.07.1995 that apart from the payment of interest at 12% per annum from Diwali-1978, the petitioner was further made liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date,the amount was paid by the respondents. On a perusal of the award and the order passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, it is clear that the petitioner was not only 4 liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in the award to the respondent from Diwali-1978 but, was also liable to pay future interest from the date of the award till the date the amount is actually paid to the respondents. It, therefore, cannot be said that the calculations made by the respondents were incorrect and that the petitioners were not liable to pay interest from Diwali-1978 till 25.07.1993. The order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 07.08.2008 is just and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, Shri Rahul D. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount of Rs.2,78,771/- and Rs.1,37,041/- to the respondents along with the costs and the lawyer's fee and they may be 5 granted four weeks time to pay the said amounts to the respondents. Shri Deo, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, states that the aforesaid amounts were due on 25.11.2006 and the petitioner may be made liable to pay the interest till the date the amount is actually paid by the petitioner to the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would pay the interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment of the amount to the respondents. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted only four weeks time to pay the decretal amount to the respondents. Since a proclamation for selling the property in auction has been issued, the auction sale of the properties is stayed only for a period of four weeks from today. 6 The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE