The validity of a final decree is upheld when a challenge to it is withdrawn, confirming the liabilities established by previous orders.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-07, South-East District, in Execution No. 408/2019, proceeding further against the petitioner in the Execution Petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Execution Petition itself is not maintainable as it in fact prays for an amendment of the Decree.

3. To appreciate the submission made, certain facts would need to be highlighted.

4. The respondent no. 1 herein had filed suit, being CS No. 7398/2016, against the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner herein with respect to a Fixed Deposit opened by M/s. Grace Towers and Properties with M/s. ITC Classic Finance Ltd., predecessor in interest of the petitioner herein. By an order dated 11.12.2017, the learned Trial Court in the said suit passed inter alia the following directions:-

"Now coming to the interest part. Though, it is mentioned in the order dated 10.12.2013 that senior advocate for plaintiff had stated that he had no objection to the payment of interest by bank, however, in the own written statement filed by defendant no.2, the averments given in the reply to the present application are not mentioned. There is no whisper about the said amount lying in abeyance or not being invested anywhere. It is nowhere stated in the entire written statement that no interest would be payable on the said FDR or in the said deposit/amount 'stop payment' has been marked. It is an admitted fact that amount was deposited in the form of FDR in the year 1994 by defendant no. 1 and same was lying with the bank till the time it was deposited in the name of Registrar General in the year 2013. Though the bank have changed their names but interest which is legally payable by defendant no. 2 cannot be said to be waived by a statement of an Advocate. The payment legally payable amount due cannot be escaped by a consent or waiver of anyone. The amount which has been taken by bank in the form of fixed deposit has an effect of an automatic renewal and bank interest for prevailing period has to be accrued on that amount, may be the simple saving account bank rate. The written statement filed by ITC Classic Finance Ltd in the year 1996, itself clarifies the position. Therefore, this court directs the defendant no. 2 to pay interest at prevailing bank rate on the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the date of deposit of said amount with ITC Classic Finance Ltd till the date on which amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was deposited in the form of FDR in the name of Registrar General of High Court of Delhi. Bank is directed to deposit the same in the form of FDR in the name of court within a month from the date of order. Application moved by plaintiff is allowed."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being CM(M) 410/2018, before this Court. The said petition was, however, withdrawn by the petitioner on 21.08.2019.

6. In the meantime, the suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 18.03.2019 in the following terms:-

"18. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get amount of Rs. 79 Lacs back from the defendant no. 1. It is clarified that amount of Rs. 70 Lacs in the form of FDR is lying with the Registry of Hon'ble High Court. Plaintiff may withdraw the same from the said Registry. The issue of interest is pending before Hon'bl