(1.) THIS revision application takes exception to the decision of the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nagpur dated April 3, 2000 in Special Darkhast No. 265 of 1999.
(2.) THE only question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the Executing Court was under an obligation to recover the amount towards future interest, although the same was not granted under the decree. The Court below has held that it was not possible for the Executing Court to recover any amount towards future interest as it would amount to going beyond the decree, Exhibit 3, which was put in execution.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below has committed an error in taking such a pedantic view, as, according to him, the applicant was entitled to press for future interest on the basis of Exhibit 3 by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978. According to him, the decree, Exhibit 3, is an instrument and also amounts to debt for which the applicant would be entitled to interest within the meaning of section 3 of the Interest Act. I am afraid, this contention cannot be entertained for the simple reason that section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 would apply only in respect of any proceeding for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made. The present proceedings being in the nature of execution proceedings, cannot be described as proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or any proceedings in which claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the stand taken by the applicant that section 3 of the Interest Act can be invoked to grant future interest to the applicant.