R. S. R. T. C vs Ram Babu Gupta - 1997 Supreme(Raj) 1022

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1997 Supreme(Raj) 1022

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
R.S.R.T.C - Appellant
Versus
Ram Babu Gupta - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 884 of 1995.
Decided On : 24-02-1997

Important Points

The executing court cannot go behind the decree to compute the amount payable by implication.

Subject

Civil Law - Execution of Decree

Headnote

EXECUTION OF DECREE - COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE - JURISDICTION OF EXECUTING COURT - SCOPE - EXECUTING COURT CANNOT GO BEHIND THE DECREE TO COMPUTE THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY IMPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, RSRTC, challenged the order of the executing court which determined the amount payable to the decree-holder, a former employee of RSRTC, who was reinstated pursuant to a decree declaring his dismissal unlawful. The petitioner argued that the executing court could not go behind the decree to compute the amount payable and that the wages of the decree-holder could not be calculated without recording evidence as to whether he was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and that the employee in whose favor the decree for reinstatement is passed is entitled to back wages. The court further held that the said wages can be calculated after inquiry as to whether the employee was gainfully employed or not during the period he was out of service.

Issues: 1. Whether the executing court can go behind the decree to compute the amount payable by implication? 2. Whether the wages of the decree-holder could be calculated without recording evidence as to whether he was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its findings. In RSRTC v. Ladu Lal Mali, the Supreme Court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and that in view of the fact that the decree contained only a declaratory relief without any consequential payment of monetary benefits, the executing court was right in refusing to grant the relief. In Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution and that it gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order insofar as it related to the imposition of costs. The court directed the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of the wages determined by the executing court to the decree-holder.

JUDGMENT

1. - Crucial question which arises for determination in this revision is as to whether the executing court can go behind the decree so as to compute the amount payable by implication under the decree?

2. This question has emerged in the circumstances set out herein below :

(i) Vide decree dated May 25, 1989 it was declared that the dismissal order passed by against non-petitioner Ram Babu Gupta on August 23, 1984 was unlawful and void and he was entitled to receive all the benefits as he would got, if no order would have been passed.

(ii) In an execution petition filed by non-petitioner, the petition RSRTC raised objection about the executabity of the decree and also moved an application of March 31, 1995.

(iii) The executing court vide order dated April 21, 1995 dismissed the application imposing Rs. 2000/- as costs on the petition.

(iv) Against the said order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.

3. Mr. P.C. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the executing court even without deciding the objections about the executability of the decree, dismissed the application and issued attachment warrant. The wages of the non-petitioners could not be calculated without recording the evidence to the effect as to whether h.. was gainfully employed or not? Mr. Jain learned counsel placed reliance on RSRTC v. Ladu Lal Mali [1996 (2) Supreme 384] : [1996(2) SLR 39 (SC)] , Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of U.P. [1996 (5) SCC 728] : [1996(5) SLR 667 (SC)] , M.D.U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (AIR 1980 SC 840) : [1980(l) SLR 497 (SC)] , RSRTC v. Krishna Kant (AIR 1995 SC 1715) : [1995(2) SLR 784 (SC)] , Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s. Empire of India, (AIR 1990 SC 255) , Ishar Singh v. National Fertilizers, (AIR 1991 SC 1546) , Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction, (AIR 1987 SC 1422) : [1987(3) SLR 65 (SC)] , Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, [ 1994 (5) SCC 572] : [1994(5) SLR 218 (SC)] , RSRTC v. Narain Singh, (S.L.P. (C) No. 17038 decided by Apex Court of December 16, 1994) .

4. R.S.R.T.C. v. Ladu Lal Mali (Supra) was the case where the Supreme Court propounded as under:

"It is settled law that executing court cannot go behind the decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only on declaratory relief without any consequential payment of monetary benefits the executing court was right in referring to grant the relief."

5. Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of U.P. (Supra) was the case where it was held by the Supreme Court that

"An executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC. In view of the fact that it was a money claim, what was to be computed was the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder, the executing court exceeded its jurisdiction in stepping out and granting a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution. The order of the executing was without jurisdiction and therefore, void."

6. M.D.U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. V.N. Vajpayee (Supra) was the case when it was indicated by the Supreme Court that

"Whether a workman or employee of statutory authority should be reinstated in public employment with or without full back wages, is a question of fact depending on evidence to be produced before the tribunal. If after the termination of his employment the workman/employee was gainfully employed elsewhere, that is one of the important factors to be considered in determining whether or not the reinstatement should be with full back wages and with continuity of employment."

7. RSRTC v. Krishna Kant (Supra) was the case where the Supreme Court laid do