IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1985 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.3.2010 M/s Preet Cloth House, Geeta Bhawan Road Sunam ......Petitioner(s) Versus State Bank of India ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) As per averments made in this petition, a suit for recovery of Rs.3,77,000/- along with future interest at the rate of Rs.13.5% per annum with monthly rests, from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the whole amount and by sale of the mortgaged property, was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2004. Respondent No.1 filed an execution application. The property of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been attached and is sought to be sold in the aforesaid execution application. The petitioner filed objections to the aforesaid execution which were dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.1.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is erroneous and against the provisions of Section 34 CPC as the Court cannot grant interest pendente lite and future interest beyond the scope of Section 34 CPC thus, the impugned order whereby interest has been granted beyond 6% per annum is illegal and is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. CR No.1985 of 2010 -2- The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force and is liable to be rejected. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is to execute the decree as it is. It is not in dispute that the Civil Court granted interest pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum along with monthly rests and the said decree has become final. Even otherwise the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has been authoritatively answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others AIR 2001 SC 3095 wherein it has been laid down that the award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC dehors the contract between the parties. However, in Clariant International Ltd. and another v. Securities and Exchange Board of India AIR 2004 SC 4236, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest can be granted in terms of agreement. Thus, the Court has the power to award contractual rate of interest during the period in which proceedings were pending before the Court till payment of decretal amount. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the present case agreed rate of interest has been awarded to the plaintiff-respondent. Once that is so, it cannot be held that there was any error of jurisdiction on the part of the Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction while granting the agreed rate of interest to the plaintiff- respondent vide impugned judgment and decrees. No merits. Dismissed. March 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE