CHACKO GEEVARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two revision petitions are connected and have been filed by the same contractor, who had undertaken to carry out certain works relating to the Kallada Irrigation Project.

(2.) THE revision petitioner had entered into, with the Government, an agreement for the execution of work on 13-4-1973. Disputes which arose in the course of the execution of the work had been referred to the Chief Engineer-Arbitrator in the manner enjoined by the provisions of the contract. He made an award on 26-11-1975. Pursuant thereto, an application, O. P. (Arbitration) No. 38 of 1975 was made under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. That application was allowed and a judgment and decree in terms of the award were passed on 9-7-1976. THEse revision petitions concern only claims 9 and 10 referred to in the award. THE operative portion of the award in respect of those claims reads : "Claims-- (IX) and (X): THE respondent shall release to the claimant the security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as well as the retention amount"

(3.) EXECUTION Petition No. 65 of 1979 was thereafter filed by the petitioner, for executing the decree. That was opposed by the respondents, the State and its officers. The revision petitioner produced two certificates Exts. A1 and A2 issued by the Executive Engineer, giving the details relating to the retention amount. The sum due by way of retention amount as disclosed by the certificates comes to Rs. 44,717/-. There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the genuineness at the certificate or the correct-ness of the amount, (Even in the course of the arguments of these revision petitions, I ascertained from the Government Pleader whether there was any dispute regarding the quantum of the retention amount as disclosed under Exts. A1 and A2 and as claimed by the revision petitioner. He stated that he had no instructions on this aspect.) There does not seem to have been any objection raised about the correctness of the amount at any relevant stage and it is therefore to be presumed that the amount actually due by way of retention amount is Rupees 44,717/-. The execution petition, as stated earlier, was resisted by the State and its officers on the ground that the decree did not give the exact retention amount and consequently the decree was unexecutable. The Court observed : "Unless the amount is specified in the decree, the executing Court cannot by its own fix the amount." It fell that despite the production of Exhibits Al and A2, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In that view of the matter the objection of the respondents was upheld. The petitioner was advised to get the decree amended by appropriate steps on the original side and then apply for execution.