IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.07.2010 C.R.No.4206 of 1996 Rajwati and others ...Petitioners Versus Dharam Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 27.08.1996, whereby the objections, on behalf of the judgment-debtors, to the execution of the decree based upon an Award of the Arbitrator, were dismissed. The decree-holder Dharam Chand sought recovery of Rs.25,000/- allegedly advanced as loan to one Gian Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave his Award on 13.10.1982. Vide the aforesaid Award, the amount of Rs.25,000/- was payable in six monthly installments i.e. first four installments of Rs.4250/- each and last two installments of Rs.4000/- each. The Arbitrator has further ordered that interest @ 1% shall be payable from the date of Award. Such Award of the Arbitrator was made Rule of the Court by the learned trial Court on 19.10.1982. The operative part of the order passed by the learned trial Court reads as under : C.R.No. 4206 of 1996 “2. Both the parties appeared through counsel and filed reply to the application of the Arbitrator. They admitted the allegations of the Arbitrator and affirmed the correctness of the Award. Their statements were recorded in the Court. In view of their replies and the statements recorded in the Court, the Award dated 13.10.1982 Ex.A1 on record is hereby made rule of the Court. A decree in terms of the Award be drawn up and file be consigned to record.” During the execution of the Award made rule of Court, the judgment-debtors have filed their objections that the Arbitrator has no power to grant interest and, therefore, the decree-holder cannot recover the amount of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator. The learned trial Court dismissed the objections relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Secretary Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa Vs. G.C.Roy, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 732 and State of Orissa Vs. B.N.Aggarwala AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2521 to return a finding that the Arbitrator has power to grant interest pendente lite. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that an Arbitrator can award future interest, but such future interest is payable only till the date of decree of the Court. After the decree, it is the order of the Civil Court. It is the Civil Court alone, which is competent to grant interest. Since, the Civil Court while making the Award as rule of the Court has not granted any interest, therefore, interest from the date of decree could not be recovered in execution of the Award made rule of the Court. A perusal of the Award shows that though the amount of Rs.25,000/- was found due and payable by the judgment-debtors, but the same was ordered to be paid in installments. Still further, the interest was payable from the date of the Award. The Court while making such Award as rule of the Court has ordered that the decree be drawn in terms of the 2 C.R.No. 4206 of 1996 Award. Therefore, the Award of interest by the Arbitrator stood incorporated in the decree granted by the Civil Court. Such grant of interest is in terms of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which empowers the Court to order interest from the date of decree at such rate, as the Court deems reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the Civil Court while making Award as rule of the Court on 19.10.1982 has not specifically provided for future interest from the date of decree till payment. Therefore, the stipulation of payment of interest in the Award cannot be enforced against the petitioners. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The Award of the Arbitrator has to be read as a whole. The Arbitrator has permitted the petitioners to make the payment of Rs.25,000/- in installments and has also ordered the interest to be payable from the date of Award. The interest was payable on the installments. Such Award has been made rule of the Court. The intention of the Arbitrator in the Award, which stood accepted by the Court while making it rule of the Court, is to compensate decree-holder in paying of the due amount in installments. There is no doubt that the Court has granted interest on the amount of installments till the same were paid. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 01.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3