Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

Union Of India vs M/S Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons Build Pvt

Supreme Court5 August 2008Aftab Alam · Tarun Chatterjee

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a civil revision petition is filed challenging an order passed in execution proceedings, and a substantive appeal on the same subject-matter is pending adjudication before an appellate court on the same issues, the High Court should decline to interfere in the revision petition and instead allow those issues to be raised and determined in the pending appeal, as it would be inappropriate for the revisional court to adjudicate questions that properly fall within the appellate court's jurisdiction.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5630 OF 2002
Union of India ...Appellant
Versus
M/s.Harbans Singh Tuli &Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
(With C.A. Nos. 5631/2002, 7314/2001& 7315-7316/2001 )
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated
26th of November, 2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Petition
No.6189/2001 by which the civil revision petition filed by
the Union of India was rejected.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
examined the materials on record including the impugned
order which had affirmed the order passed by the Executing
Court. It is not in dispute that against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chandigarh, the2
Union of India has filed an appeal before the appellate court
which has been registered as C.A. No. 31 of 2001. The said
appeal is still pending decision. Since there was no stay of
the execution proceeding for recovery of the money decree,
the execution case proceeded and final order in the
execution case was passed. In the execution proceeding,
the executing court allowed the execution petition accepting
the calculations made by the judgment-debtor including
interest over interest on the amount awarded by the
Arbitrator. Feeling aggrieved, a Civil Revision Case No.
6189/2001 was filed by the Union of India before the High
Court in which the core challenge was that whether interest
over the interest was payable or not. Be that as it may,
these appeals arise out of an order, as mentioned earlier,
passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Case No.6189 of
2001 in which the question raised was in respect of two
parts. The first part relates to payment of interest from 24th
of December, 1973 till 27th of August, 1996 and the second
part seems to be prima facie providing interest on the total
amount from 27th of August, 1996 till payment. The3
Executing Court allowed this prayer of decree holder
against which the aforesaid civil revision case was filed. The
High Court while refusing to interfere with the said order
made the following observations:-
"Whether or not this is legally permissible,is the subject matter of the appeal filed by theUnion of India. Therefore, I am of the consideredopinion that it would be inappropriate for thisCourt to make any comments on the merits ofthe controversy."
On the aforesaid observations, the civil revision case
was dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and considered the materials on record. We are
informed that till today the Civil Appeal No.31/2001 is still
pending before the Additional District Judge and, therefore,
the observation made by the High Court in the impugned
order would show that the question raised in the revision
case would very well be adjudicated in the appeal now
pending before the appellate court.

4

3. Such being the position, we are of the view that no

interference is called for under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, these appeals are

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

4. Before parting, we make it clear that all questions

raised by the Union of India in this revision petition shall be

allowed to be raised by them before the appellate court till

the C.A.No.31/2001 is pending. If any order has been

passed staying the proceedings in appeal, the same shall

stand vacated and appellate court is directed to dispose of

the appeal within six months from the date of supply of a

copy of this order positively without granting any

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi, .........................J. August 5, 2008. [Aftab Alam]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free