C.R. No. 5045 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5045 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.10.2010 Dr. Pawan Kumar Goyal .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner-decree holder has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Executing Court as well as order dated 28.1.2008 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) has filed the Civil Suit No. 80 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chandigarh. The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004. 3. The operative part of the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004 is reproduced as under:- “The suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to his full salary, with effect from C.R. No. 5045 of 2010 2 8.12.1995 to 5.11.1996 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on arrears of all retirement benefits which were paid to him after 31.3.1999. Accordingly, suit is decreed partly with proportionate costs and the order dated 15.1.2003 memo No. 13/161/2000-3Ss(3) 213 dated 15.1.2003 issued by defendant No. 1, order dated 3.3.1998 issued vide letter N. 11/391/94-3Ss3/605 dated 3.3.1998 passed by defendant No. 1 stands set aside.” 4. Judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chandigarh was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2004 in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. Learned District Judge, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.5.2005 with modification in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court dated 11.5.2005 is reproduced as under:- “This court is of the opinion that grant of interest by the lower court at the rate of 12% p.a. is on the higher side. As the plaintiff respondent has been deprived of the salary for the period from 8.12.1995 to 5.11.1996 without any reasonable cause, the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the delayed payment of the salary for the said period is deemed to be appropriate and is granted as such. The judgment and decree passed by the lower court is affirmed with partial modification that the plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. however, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to hear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.” 5. Petitioner (decree holder herein) moved an execution C.R. No. 5045 of 2010 3 application for recovery of the decretal amount. Objection was raised before the Executing Court that Appellate Court has awarded 6% interest on the outstanding salary as well as on the post retirement benefits while stand of the decree holder was that first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2008 has reduced the interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum, only on the remaining salary and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the post retirement benefits has not been modified and reduced by the first Appellate Court. 6. To clarify the position decree holder (petitioner herein) moved an application before the Appellate Court under Section 152 CPC for correction of the decree, in the light of the judgment passed by first Appellate Court. It was contended by the decree-holder before the first Appellate Court, in an application under Section 152 CPC, that while reducing the interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum first Appellate Court has specifically directed that 6% interest shall be payable on the pending salary. It has further been contended before the District Judge that interest on the post retirement benefits from 12% per annum to 6% per annum was never reduced. Learned District Judge did not agree with the decree holder and dismissed the application moved by the petitioner herein under Section 152 CPC vide judgment dated 28.1.2008. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 30.9.2004 as reproduced herein above, it can very well be said that trial Court has awarded interest at rate of 12% per annum on the C.R. No. 5045 of 2010 4 remaining salary for the period 8.12.1995 to 5.11.1996 and has also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the post retirement benefit. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court dated 11.5.2005 as reproduced herein above, it can safely be said that learned District Judge has reduced interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum only on the salary part and learned District Judge has not reduced the interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum on the post retirement benefit. However, in the decree sheet it has wrongly been mentioned that on the decretal amount interest payable shall be 6% per annum. 9. It seems that decree has not been drawn in the light of the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court. It ought to have been corrected under Section 152 CPC by the District Judge, since, it is an apparent error on the face of the record. In the opinion of this Court if decree is not drawn as per judgment passed then it should be corrected while exercising jurisdiction under Section 152 CPC. 10. Decree sheet is directed to be amended in accordance with the observations made herein above. Let fresh decree be drawn up. After correction of the decree as per the observations of this Court, Executing Court shall proceed with the execution of the decree. 11. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 06.10.2010 JUDGE reena