STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI CHAND RAI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana has challenged order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar dismissing the objection raised by the judgment debtor-petitioner (for brevity JD-petitioner) which was filed against the execution of the decrees dated 1.10.1987 and 19.8.1993.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the decree holder-respondent (DH- respondent) was working on the establishment of Sessions Court, Hissar and he succeeded in persuading the trial Court to pass a decree dated 1.10.1987 which was confirmed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar on 19.8.1993. The respondent was held entitled to claim the difference of pay and other allowances on the post of Superintendent from 1.4.1980 with the benefit of increment from December, 1979 i.e. the date when persons junior to the DH- respondent were promoted. The decree-holder respondent was also held entitled to all consequential retrial benefits alongwith interest @ 18 per cent from the date of decree i.e. 12.10.1987. Thereafter the DH-respondent initiated execution proceedings. In execution proceedings the judgment debtor-petitioner raised the plea that the decree in question was not executable because it was a decree for declaration simpliciter. A further plea was raised that a period of 12 years from the date of passing the decree dated 1.10.1987 had expired and that such a decree is not executable. The executing Court rejected the objection by holding that the DH-respondent was found senior than those who were impleaded as defendants by the Court which passed the decree. He was further held entitled to get pay for the period during which he would have been promoted. The executing Court has not considered the decree as merely a declaratory decree and rejected the objections by observing as under :

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I am of the considered view that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. It is true that a declaratory decree merely declares the rights of the decree-holder viz-a-viz. the judgment-debtor and it does not in term direct the judgment- debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or things. The question, however, is whether in the present case the decree which is sought to be executed could be held merely a declaratory decree or it goes beyond declaration. To solve the aforementioned controversy it is necessary to make a reference to the operative part of the decree which reads as under :