G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned" executing Court whereby the learned Judge permitted the decree holder to claim interest for the delayed payments made to him by the judgment debtor. The learned executing Court is not aware that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. He cannot add any word in the decree. The decree has to be executed without any additions or alterations either on the ground of equity or on the ground of morality The learned Judge should not have permitted hi n-self to be swayed away by erroneous considerations. The trial Judge who decreed the claim of the decree holder granted the following relief: "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the declaration with costs to the effect that order dated 19th March, 1975 passed by the D.S.P. Railway is illegal and ultravirus and has no effect upon the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued to be in service upto the age of 58 years of service. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover pay and all benefits upto the age of 58 years. He is also entitled to get his pension and gratuity on the basis of the pay which he would live drawn ,ad he retired after attaining the age or 58 years."
(2.) Then is no mention in the decree that the decree holder is entitled to any interest on the delayed payments. It was for the trial Judge who hid decreed the claim to award the interest. He did not t ward any in e-rest. The resultant effect will be that the relief of interest was declined. Sub-section (2) of section of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that where a decree is silent with respect to payment of further interest. The Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest. The revision petition is a'lowed. The learned Judge will execute the decree as reproduced above No order as to costs Petition allowed.;