V. Chitambaresh, J. - (1.)CAN the judgment rendered in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be executed in a civil court when there is an express declaration therein that the same is in the nature of a decree? The petitioners in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department and the respondent is an independent contractor. The respondent successfully completed fourteen items of work entrusted to him by the Irrigation Department and later submitted bills to the petitioners for settlement. The failure to settle the bills and even pay the admitted amounts led to the respondent filing a writ petition. O.P. No. 26920/1999 on the file of this Court filed by the respondent was disposed of by Ext. P1 judgment dated 07.12.1999. The operative part of the same read as follows: -
Since the contract work was completed and there was no dispute regarding admissibility, the admitted bills should be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of submission of the bills.

(2.)THE petitioners did not comply with the directions contained in Ext. P1 judgment compelling the respondent to initiate proceedings in contempt. C.C.C. No. 1150/2000 on the file of this Court filed by the respondent was disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment dated 06.04.2001. It inter alia read as follows: -
In the nature of the directions given in the judgment in the original petitions, by nonpayment of the bill amount within the period allowed in each judgment, what the petitioner can claim is only interest at the rate granted in each judgment. The judgment is in the nature of a decree which the petitioner can get executed against the respondents for the principal amount and interest thereon. If the principal amount is not paid within the time granted, the liability on the respondent is to pay interest. We are therefore of the view that by mere non -payment of the principal amount within the time granted, the respondents cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(Emphasis supplied)

The admitted bill amount was paid by the petitioners who however did not care to pay interest to the respondent on account of belated settlement. The claim of the respondent that the admitted amount would carry interest from the date of submission of the bills fell on deaf ears. The respondent therefore filed yet another writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to pay interest. WP(C) No. 3470/2007 on the file of this Court filed by the respondent was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment dated 27.05.2009. The concluding part of the judgment read as follows: -

I am of the opinion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of Ext. P4 Full Bench decision in the contempt case filed by the petitioner himself, in so far as the Full Bench has held that since the judgment is in the nature of a decree, the petitioner has to get it executed against the respondent for principal amount and the interest thereof. Subsequently, the petitioner was paid the principal amount. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek execution of Ext. P2 judgment appropriately, this writ petition is dismissed.

(Emphasis supplied)

(3.)THUS the respondent was literally driven from pillar to post to get interest on the admitted amount even though his entitlement was upheld in Ext. P1 judgment. There was no contentious issue to be adjudicated between the parties necessitating the respondent to file a suit. There already exists a declaration in Exts. P2 and P3 judgments that Ext. P1 judgment 'is in the nature of a decree'. What then disables the respondent to levy execution proceedings on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram? The fourteen items of work were executed within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Thiruvananthapuram only. The seat of the petitioners was also at Thiruvananthapuram which legitimized the levy of execution proceedings thereat. Ext. P4 Execution Petition in E.P. No. 340/2009 was accordingly filed by the respondent to which Ext. P5 objection was filed by the petitioners. There is no whisper in Ext. P5 objection that Ext. P1 judgment cannot be executed by resort to Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The execution court by Ext. P6 order dated 01.02.2011 directed an attachment of Rs. 26,13,115.81/ - due to the respondent. The execution court later clarified the account number of the Irrigation Department by Ext. P7 order dated 12.06.2011. Thus Exts. P6 and P7 orders directing attachment and specifying account number are under challenge herein.