Whether Executing Court Has Jurisdiction To Modify Quantum Of Interest & Component Of Payment Liability? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2022 agreed to consider whether the Executing Court has the jurisdiction to modify the quantum of interest and the component of payment liability.

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar issued notice while considering a SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated November 26, 2019 ("impugned judgement").

"Issue notice on the special leave petition also on the application for condonation of delay, returnable on 31.01.2022," the bench noted in its order.

The petitioner's counsel had contended that the Executing Court had modified the quantum of interest and the component of payment liability, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court.

Case Before Punjab and Haryana High Court

On July 24, 1973 the plaintiff (Parshotam Lal Kapoor) was allotted an industrial plot at a price of Rs.36,300/-. Out of this, 25% of the amount was paid by the plaintiff at the initial stage and the remaining amount was to be paid in installments. After taking possession, the plaintiff installed some business establishment of cloth printing and dying by availing a loan from the Bank. Since no amenities were provided, the plaintiff approached the defendants/judgment-debtors ( Haryana Urban Development Authority) to provide all the amenities, but in vain. Due to scarcity of funds, the plaintiff's unit became sick and came under heavy debt from the market due to which he was compelled to close the unit.

The defendants on June 10, 1988 served a notice upon the plaintiff raising an amount of Rs 60,835 and the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.42,008.65 as against the total amount of Rs.36,300/-. When the defendants again issued a notice on November 24, 1988 raising an amount of Rs.51,918/-, the plaintiff filed a suit.

The Trial Court passed a decree dated November 26, 1994. Although the defendants appealed before the lower appellate court, the same was dismissed on December 11, 1995.

The defendants in the execution filed by the decree holder worked out a figure but the Executing Court directed the decree holder to make some amount of payment along with interest.

In the execution filed by the decree holder, the defendants/petitioners had allegedly worked out a figure of Rs.95,79,371/- as a due amount against the decree holder for obtaining occupation certificate and for registration of conveyance deed in favour of the decree holder.

Aggrieved, Haryana Urban Development Authority had approached the High Court by way of revision petition.

The bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh while dismissing the petition said,

"It appears from the record that the petitioners/judgment debtors have adopted an indifferent attitude towards the decree holder/respondent since very inception. Such a type of attitude has to be deprecated in strong words. Modified decree dated 11.12.1995 passed by the lower Appellate Court is under challenge. The said decree provided for Rs.32,644.70 along with interest @ 7% per annum from 31.12.1986 till the date of its realization to the judgment debtors. In contrast to the aforesaid, the judgment debtors have calculated an amount of Rs.95,79,371/-. The executing Court has rightly passed the order dated 30.04.2019. Non-compliance of decree dated 11.12.1995 would entail a coercive method to be adopted by the executing Court and in my considered opinion, the executing Court has not committed any error while forcing the petitioners/judgment debtors to execute the decree in pith and substance."

Case Title: Haryana Urban Development Authority, Now Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr. V. Parshotam Lal Kapoor| Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 18564/2020

Click Here To Read/Download High Court Order

Click Here To Read/Download Supreme Court Order