The executing Court cannot go behind the decree and hold that interest has been wrongly awarded therein in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC. However, the executing Court can examine if the decree was passed by the Court in conformity with the first proviso to Section 34 of the CPC.

1. Brief resume of the facts is that the defendant-judgment-debtor took a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff-decreeholder. Plaintiff-decree-holder obtaining an ex parte decree for an amount of Rs. 3400/-. It was also ordered in the decree that the plaintiff-decree-holder will be entitled to 6 per cent interest per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

2. Judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 4280/on May 20, 1990, alleging to be payment in full and final satisfaction of the decree. This amount is withdrawn by the respondentdecree-holder. Judgment-debtor-petitioner has calculated interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as ordered in the decree on the Principal amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment. Petitioners contention is that by the impugned order the executing Court erred in law in holding that the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum pendente lite on the adjudged interest as well, which, according to the petitioner, is against the statutory provisions of S. 34 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) and also against the principles of natural justice.

3. Respondent decree holders learned counsel contended that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In the decree interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum is allowed to the decree-holder on the awarded amount of Rs. 3,400/-. Hence the judgmentdebtor is not entitled to calculate interest only on the principal amount of Rs. 2,000/-. He further submitted that while executing the decree, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and hold that interest has been wrongly awarded therein in view of the provisions of S. 34 of the Code. In support of this contention, he has relied on M/s. Foremost Industries India Ltd. V/s. Ram Swarup Khattar, 1992 ISJ (Banking) 399 and M/s. Sanjeev Construction Co. V/s. Punjab and Sind Bank, 1993 ISJ (Banking) 452.

4. Petitioners learned counsel, relying on State of Punjab V/s. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177; Devinder Kumar V/s. Syndicate Bank, 1994 (1) 106 Pun LR 1; Krishan Lal V/s. State Bank of Patiala, (1990) 97 Pun LR 132; Jagdish Chander V/s. Punjab National Bank, 1994 (1) 106 Pun LR 211 : (AIR 1994 Punj and Har 98) and Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil V/s. Shripal Balwant Raindade, AIR 1988 SC 1200, contended that if the decree is against the provisions of S. 34 of the Code, the executing Court is entitled to consider the point of legality of the decree and to execute only that part which is legal and in accordance with S. 34 of the Code.

5. In Krishan Dayal Sharmas case (AIR 1990 SC 2177) (supra) interest was not claimed in the suit and no direction was issued by the Court in that regard while granting the decree. The executing Court granted interest. The Apex Court held that the executing Court cannot grant interest, which was not awarded in the decree and the order was held illegal.

6. In Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patils case (AIR 1988 SC 1200) (supra) the Apex Court has held that the equitable rule of Damdupat is applicable to the transaction of mortgage as well.

7. In M/s. Foremost Industries India Ltd.s case (supra) a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that if in decree interest on interest, due up to the date of filing of the suit, is allowed, the decree is a nullity, but the executing Court cannot entertain such objection and cannot go behind the decree.

8. In M/s. Sanjeev Construction Co.s case (1993 ISJ (Banking) 452) (supra) this Court has held that the executing Court is bound by the terms of the decree and it cannot add or alter the decree on its notion of fairness or justice. The right of the decree-holder to obtain. the relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. In that case also objection was raised under S. 34 of the Code on the count that granting of interest is not correct.

9. In Krishan Lals case (1990 (97) Pun LR 132) (supra) a single Bench of