- (1.) How unjust enrichment takes place is reflected by the action taken by the executing court while wrongly interpreting the decree in the instant matter. It appears that way back on 19.11.1992, State of Madhya Pradesh as well as State of Uttar Pradesh, conducted raid upon the premises of Respondent No.1, i.e. Pawan Saw Mills, State of Uttar Pradesh had seized saw mill, whereas State of Madhya Pradesh effected seizure of saw mills' machinery, tools and timber which were lying. The seizure memo was drawn by appellants on 19.11.1992, which included the following items : "1.) 1 Ek Nag Motor 10 Horse Power 2.) 3 Nag B Bent 3.) 8 Nag Puli 4.) 6 Nag Chutki Sent 5.) 1 Nag plate ka chotta hissa 6.) 3 Nag Wheel"
(2.) Aforesaid items were given back as per Superdaginama executed by Respondent No.1 on 10.01.1994. The details of goods which were given back is as under: " DETAILS OF GOODS As per the orders of the Forest Officer, Forest Division, Teekamgarh letter No.1/7.1.1994 and 88/7.1.94 the following articles have been released on superdari: 1. One Motor - 10 Horse Power 2. 3 Nos. B. Belt 3. 2 Nos. Pulley 4. 6 Nos. Chutki Set 5. 1 No. small part of plate 6. 3 Nos. wheel" As per the orders of the trial court, the electric motor and all the seized parts of the saw mill were returned by the appellants to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per Superdaginama dated 10.01.1994.
(3.) The decree which was passed by the trial court in the instant case had been modified by the first appellate court to the following extent: "The Appeal No.159/95 of the appellants M/s. Pawan Saw Mills is admitted with costs against the Respondents/Defendants No.3 and 4 to the extent that the appellants are entitled to get the damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from the Respondents/Defendants with effect from 19.11.1992 till the date of returning their Saw Machine parts and electricity motors etc. The Respondents/Defendants No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to renew the license of the plaintiffs as per rules after receiving the prescribed fees and completion of the legal formalities The Appeal No.193/95 is partly admitted to the extent that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any damages from the Defendants/ Respondents No.1 and 2. The judgment of the Hon'ble lower court is confirmed with regard to rest of the conclusions. A copy of the judgment be kept in Appeal No.193/95.";