Civil Revision. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.03.2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through Executive Engineer (Civil), Amritsar ....petitioner Versus Jagdish Raj and Brothers ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ***** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) BSNL has filed this civil revision challenging the order dated 5.2.2007 vide which the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs.29,07,785/-, on the ground that the same is illegal, as no interest can be granted on the amount of interest. As per averments made in this petition, the respondent was awarded a contract by the petitioner. A dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. S.K. Ahuja. The sole arbitrator gave an award on 28.9.1998, which was made rule of the Civil Revision. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Court vide order dated 15.2.2000. It is relevant to point out that the sole arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs.19,29,877.09/- along with 18% simple interest from 8.10.1986. It was specifically mentioned in this award that the claimant shall be entitled to interest on the total awarded amount. While making this award as rule of the Court, the learned trial Court has adjudged this amount of interest also as claim and has ordered that interest shall be payable on this amount also. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging aforesaid order of the learned trial Court by filing F.A.O. No. 1248 of 2000 in this Court, which is still pending. Vide order dated 8.5.2000 passed by this Court in F.A.O. No. 1248 of 2000, execution of the decree was stayed provided the amount of the award is deposited by Union of India, which was to be paid to the decree holder, subject to furnishing of bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the executing Court. The executing Court vide order dated 9.8.2000 accepted the bank guarantee furnished by the claimant decree holder and ordered the release of an amount of Rs.67,21,762/-, which was deposited by the Union of India to the claimant. The claimant filed civil revision No. 196 of 2001 in this Court challenging the order dated 9.8.2000 and this Court vide order dated 24.4.2001, set aside the order dated 9.8.2000 with a direction to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, to give a specific finding as to whether any additional amount is due to the decree holder or not. Vide impugned order, the executing Court held that an amount Civil Revision. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) -3- of Rs.29,07,785/- is still recoverable from the petitioner and issued warrant of attachment of property of the petitioner-J.D. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, no stay was granted against the impugned decree of the learned trial Court dated 15.2.2000 and vide order dated 8.5.2000, this Court in F.A.O. No. 1248 of 2000 ordered that amount deposited by the Union of India shall be paid to the decree holder, subject to bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the executing Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the Union of India has deposited 50% of the adjudged amount, which has been paid to the decree holder claimant. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, after the amendment in Section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act, now jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decree dated 15.2.2000 is before the District Judge. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the claimant and he has no objection, if the Registry is directed to send the file and record of F.A.O. No. 1248 of 2000 to the District Judge, Amritsar, for decision. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, office is directed to send the file and record of F.A.O. No. 1248 of 2000 pending in this Court to the District Judge, Amritsar, immediately. It is further directed that the appeal be decided on merits within three months. It is also observed that the District Judge is free to keep this appeal with him or may send it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction as per his administrative convenience. It is also observed that till the decision is taken by the District Judge, Amritsar, recovery of Civil Revision. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) -4- the remaining amount shall remain stayed. Issue of impleading applicants in C.M. No. 1774-C of 2008 will also be decided by the executing Court. Disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 2, 2009 R.S.