VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 27.2.2003 vide which while dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners in the execution application of the decree holder, the learned executing Court has been pleased to order as under :- "In view of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on the file, I am of the considered opinion that objections moved by JDs are without any substance and same being devoid of any merits are hereby ordered to be dismissed. JDs are directed to pay all the benefits to DH after his reinstatement in the service and JDs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,44,220/- to DH after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,66,506/- and Rs. 99,734/- which has already been paid to DH by the JDs. As per statement of pay and other benefits Ex. DH/1, DH is entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 6,44,220/- from the JDs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its realisation, but as already stated above DH has already received an amount of Rs. 1,66,506/- and 99,734/- and this amount is ordered to be deducted from this amount of Rs. 6,44,220/-. Accordingly, objections stand disposed of and same is ordered to be dismissed being devoid of any merits."
(2.) THE execution application was contested on the plea that though the decree stood fully satisfied, however, the learned executing Court, as would be clear from the order reproduced above, has come to the conclusion that the decree holder was entitled to Rs. 6,44,220/- from the judgment-debtors. It was also made clear in the order that the sums of Rs. 1,66,506/- and Rs. 99,734/- already received by the decree-holder were liable to be deducted out of this amount. Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has only challenged the part of the impugned order vide which interest @ 12% per annum has been granted to the decree-holder on the amount of Rs. 6,44,220/-. In order to appreciate this argument, it would be pertinent to notice that the judgment sought to be executed was to the following effect :- "Suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 11.1.1990 passed by the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt, whereby the Revision Petition of the plaintiff was rejected and in which order dated 6.1.1989 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP (Admn.) Jalandhar Cantt. rejecting his appeal and order dated 1.6.1988 passed by the Commandant, 80th Battalion, PAP Jalandhar Cantt dismissing him from service have merged is illegal and void, unlawful and unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, null, wanton, discriminatory and mala fide against the provisions of law, service rules and rules of natural justice, unjust and improper, inoperative and ineffective and is, therefore, not binding on him and that the plaintiff continues to be in service as before 1.6.1988 and is entitled to all service benefits including pay and allowances attached to the rank. Plaint presented on 16.7.1990. This suit is coming up on 12th of May, 1993 for final disposal before me (Harveen Kaur, Sub Judge IIIrd. Class, Jalandhar) in the presence of Sh. P.L. Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff and Govt. Pleader for the defendants. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration is decreed with costs as prayed for." Thus, it would be seen that the decree passed by the Court below did not include the payment of interest and, therefore, it was not open to the executing Court to go beyond the decree. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly accepted and impugned part of the judgment under challenge vide which interest of 12% per annum has been granted to the decree holder in execution of the decree, is set aside. Petition partly allowed.;