JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this execution petition, the decree holder has raised an issue that he was entitled to interest for the period from 4th April 2002 to 28th January 2008 as well.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this question are that the in pursuance of an award passed by this Court, the decree holder was awarded a sum of Rs.6,97,899.00 with interest thereon @ 12% per annum. Pursuant to this award, a cheque for Rs.9,82,010.00, after deducting TDS to the tune of Rs.23,11,81.00 i.e. a total amount of Rs.10,05,128.00, as claimed by the decree holder inclusive of interest up to 27th August 2002 was paid by the JD to the decree holder on 10th January 2003. The decree holder executed a receipt of this amount and of receiving full and final payment in respect of this decree. However, a suit between Union of India i.e. Judgment debtor and decree holder being suit No.26287 of 2000 was pending before the District Court, Delhi for recovery of outstanding dues and damages to the tune of Rs.4,96,839.00. The decree holder, who was defendant in the suit, was evading appearance before the District Court and the efforts to serve decree holder by the judgment debtor through normal process had failed. Judgment debtor, therefore, filed an application before the leaned Additional District Judge, Delhi, where the suit was pending, under Section 151 CPC as well as under Order 38 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code for attachment of the amount receivable by the decree holder from judgment debtor under this decree. This application was disposed of by the learned District Judge on 25th February 2003 and the learned District Judge observed that the reports of process serving agency clearly showed that the decree holder had managed to get a report that he was not living at the given address although he was very much living at the same address and he was evading service. On being informed by JD that decree holder was going to appear before the Railways Authority in Baroda House for the purpose of receiving a cheque of above Rs.10,00,000.00, the learned District Judge allowed the application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and directed attachment of Rs.4,96,839.00 out of the amount received by the decree holder from JD through cheque. It is submitted by decree holder that due to this attachment order obtained by JD, the decree holder could not get the payment of the cheuqe and the decree remained unexecuted and after great efforts of decree holder ultimately a detailed order was passed by this Court on 21st August 2008 and the decree holder could get this amount from the Court. The decree holder wanted that he should be paid interest @ 18% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of attachment till 21st August 2008.

(3.) I , therefore, find no force in the plea of decree holder that he was entitled to interest for the period from 4th April 2002 to 28th January 2008 as well. The question raised by the decree holder is decided accordingly. This execution petition stands disposed of.