Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 Date of Order: 6th July, 2011 Dharam Pal Arora ....Petitioner Versus Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner lays challenge to an order dated 10.03.1998, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, directing the petitioner to refund Rs.52757/- received as excess payment during execution proceedings. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration challenging an order dispensing with his services as Head Office Assistant. The petitioner also prayed for grant of consequential relief with respect to promotion, pay and allowances etc. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate Court, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit, but without interest. The respondents filed Regular Second Appeal NO.579 of 1992, which was dismissed on 29.07.1992. The petitioner thereafter filed an execution petition for payment of Rs. 69230/- as arrears, Rs. 52757/- as interest and Rs.2200/- as expenses of the execution petition. The respondent filed objections, which were dismissed on 22.10.1993. The Executing Court passed an order of attachment pursuant whereto the respondent deposited Rs.1,24,187/-. Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 -2- The respondent, filed Civil Revision No.662 of 1994, which was dismissed. The petitioner received Rs.1,24,187/- and thereafter got the execution petition dismissed as partly satisfied. The petitioner, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 28.12.1994 to the respondent praying for a deemed date of promotion, the consequential revision of pay and allowances and payment of arrears. The respondent filed an application before the Executing Court pointing out that as Rs.54987/- has been wrongly paid to the petitioner, the petitioner should be directed to refund this amount. The petitioner opposed the application on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The Executing Court, allowed the application by holding that as excess payment has been received by the petitioner on account of an errors committed by the Court and the judgment debtor, the petitioner is required to refund this amount. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.52757/- was rightly paid as interest on delayed payment of arrears of salary. The Executing Court, has over looked the fact that Rs. 52757/- was received by the petitioner after an order of attachment was passed by the Executing Court. It is further argued that as the application for refund was filed after three years, it is barred by time as even otherwise an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') is not maintainable. It is also argued that even if the decree is silent with respect to payment of interest, an Executing Court is empowered, to award interest. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the decree passed in his favour, the orders appended with the petition and the impugned order. As is apparent from the decree, passed in favour of the petitioner, interest was not awarded on consequential benefits. Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 -3- Admittedly, Rs.52757/- was paid as interest, under pain of an order of attachment and under a bonafide error that Rs.52757/- was also due to the petitioner, as interest. The order of attachment directing the respondents to pay Rs.1,24,187/-, including Rs. 52757/-as interest, is beyond the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. The Executing Court was empowered and in fact obliged, in the exercise of its inherent powers to direct the petitioner to refund the excess amount. A fundamental principle that underlines all judicial adjudications is that an error of a court must not visit a party with adverse consequences. A beneficiary of an error shall not be heard to urge or press into service technicalities that would have the effect of perpetuating an illegality committed by a Court. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce a relevant extract from the order passed by the Executing Court to place its findings in correct perspective:- “I agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel for the respondent that the present application does not fall within the purview of S.144 CPC since applicant has not become entitle to get refund of any amount as a result of alteration or modification in any order or decree passed by a Court of law. This situation with regard to excess payment in the present case has arisen on account of some fault on the part of the decree holder, some lapse on the part of the J.D. and then some mistake on the part of the court as well. This Court is well award of this fact that it cannot sit in appeal or revision on an order passed by its predecessor. But at the same time, if remains a fact that the respondent Dharam Pal Arora has obtained the payment of amount of interest of Rs.52757/- without any decree to that effect in his favour when Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 -4- admittedly no order was passed by the executing court for the payment of interest beyond the decree passed by the first appellate court when on the contrary the court of Shri Inderjit Singh dismissed the objection petition of the applicant board with the observations that the execution court cannot go behind the decree and it is to execute the same as it is. Since the court of Shri Inderjit Singh has only made an order for the execution of the decree as it is, Dharam Pal Arora was not held entitled to get the amount of interest even by the execution court which was otherwise beyond the scope of the decree passed in his favour by the first appellate court. The decree holder/respondent is guilty of claiming an amount of Rs.52757/- towards interest by way of the execution petition when there is no decree of interest in his favour.” An argument that the application was filed beyond a period of three years has been satisfactorily dealt with by the Executing Court by holding that the callous attitude of the officers of the Board does not absolve the Court of its obligation to rectify its error particularly when there is no decree in favour of the petitioner. The Executing Court has held that the mistake occurred at the time of issuing the D.R.O. in favour of the petitioner by including the amount of interest Rs.52757/-. I find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with this finding. The petitioner has been paid an amount that was not payable and, therefore, must in all fairness refund this amount. It is true that in a given situation an Executing Court, may, in the absence of grant of interest in the decree, award interest for delayed payment. In the present case, however, as the Executing Court has not passed any such order , the excess amount paid to the Civil Revision No.1787 of 1998 -5- petitioner has to be refunded. An argument that the application under Section 151 of CPC is not maintainable and the respondent should be relegated to its remedy of filing a suit for recovery is not tenable. The error committed by the Executing Court has been rightly rectified. In view of what has been stated hereinabove and in the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law, in the impugned order, the revision is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 6th July, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE