IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7345 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Sabha @ Sobha Ram …Petitioner Versus Punjab & Sindh Bank, Karnal. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sapra, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the orders dated 04.06.2008, 12.12.2008 and 11.11.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court. The brief facts of the present case are that a suit for recovery was filed by the Bank against the petitioner – C.R. No. 7345 of 2009 defendant, which was placed before the Special Lok Adalat, Karnal and by the efforts of the Lok Adalat, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and on the basis of the settlement/compromise, the following order was passed by the Lok Adalat on 17.03.2001:- “The case of loanee took up in the special Lok Adalat being held today on an application moved by the Bank. The parties have compromised the matter in dispute. Statement of both the parties in this regard recorded separately. In view of their statement and compromise, the claim of the bank is accepted to the tune of Rs.200000/- instead of claim of Rs.283115/- which shall be paid in four intallments of Rs.50,000/- each by 31.5.2001, 31.12.2001, 31.5.2002 and 21.12.2002, failing which the claimant bank shall be entitled to recover the remaining amount in lump sump along with interest at the rate of 12.54% p.a. and paper be consigned.” Thereafter, defendant did not make payment as per the settlement / compromise as recorded by the Lok Adalat. Plaintiff – Bank moved an execution application before the learned Executing Court claiming the entire outstanding amount calculating compound interest thereon at the rate of 12.75% as directed by the Lok Adalat. In the execution, Bank 2 C.R. No. 7345 of 2009 has also included Rs. 25,085/- towards litigation expenses. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the present petition before this Court, petitioner has paid entire amount as calculated by the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner – judgment debtor rightly argued that neither the Executing Court nor the parties can go behind the decree. He has further argued rightly that no litigation expenses were awarded by the Lok Adalat, hence, Rs. 25,085/- were wrongly recovered from the petitioner – judgment debtor which petitioner – judgment debtor is liable to receive back from the bank. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent – Bank, states that since bank has to file execution application, hence, bank is justified in recovering the litigation expenses. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that award of Lok Adalat does not permit the bank to recover litigation expenses, even if execution is moved by the Bank, bank shall not be entitled to recover the litigation expenses for want of any stipulation in the decree. Since, the entire money has already been paid by the petitioner – judgment debtor, hence, nothing more is required to be decided in this petition, except to hold that decree – holder has recovered Rs. 25,085/- towards litigation expenses 3 C.R. No. 7345 of 2009 against the terms of the decree / award which petitioner is liable to receive back within 15 days from today. Petition is disposed of accordingly with a direction that respondent shall refund Rs.25,085/- to the petitioner within 15 days from today. September 10, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4