Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the Executing Court vide which objection petition filed on behalf of objectors Banarsi Dass, Dharam Pal, Smt. Janak Dulari and M/s Punjab Rice and General Mills, G.T. Road, Jagraon through Raja Ram, was dismissed, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. For the disposal of the objection petition, following issues were framed by the Executing Court vide order dated 13.3.2003:

(1) Whether the decree holder is entitled to recover interest as alleged?OP Decree-holder

(2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present execution petition?

(3) Relief.

3. After receiving oral as well as documentary evidence, all these issues were decided by the Executing Court against the objectors and in favour of the decree-holder.

4. Award dated 23.2.1998 relating to dissolution and rendition of accounts of partnership firm M/s Punjab Rice and General Mills, G.T. Road, Jagraon, is under execution. The Arbitration Award (Annexure P-2) concedingly had its genesis in agreement dated 23.1.1998 (Annexure P-1). Admittedly, Banarasi Dass (now deceased and being represented by his LRs i.e. petitioners No.1 to 3), Dharam Pal and Smt. Janak Dulari, were held liable to make a payment of Rs.36,75,000/- to respondent Raja Ram alongwith interest @ 18% per annum in four equal installments within a period of six months from the date of pronouncement of the Award.

5. Claim of the petitioners-objectors is that the Executing Court has completely misread and mis-interpreted the facts as also the Award and has wrongly dismissed the objection petition. It is also claimed that the decree-holder was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of the Award up to the date of filing of execution application which payment was deposited by the petitioners-objectors prior to filing of the execution application and thus, no interest was payable thereafter. It is claimed that when the decree-holder himself is responsible for delaying the proceedings, no interest is payable to him.

6. It is urged that when the Arbitrator has not allowed interest, the Executing Court cannot go behind the Award being executed as a decree and thus, cannot grant post Award interest. Support has been sought from Coal Linker Versus Coal India Limited 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 372 (SC); The Haryana Sugar and General Mills Production Co-operative Industrial Society Limited, Mohra Versus Registar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana 1990(2) RRR 28 (P&H); Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh Versus Mehma Singh 2014(2) PLR 201 (P&H) and Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Versus AMCI(I) Pvt. Ltd. and another 2009(4) RCR(Civil) 288 (SC). It is further urged that the Executing Court cannot settle the terms by going beyond and away from the Award while executing the same. Reference in this regard has been made to National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Pressteel & Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. & another 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 511 (SC) and Greater Cochin Development Authority Veersus Leelamma Valson 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 130 (SC). In short, it is claimed that when future interest was not allowed by the Arbitrator and, in fact, is not part of the Award, the same could not have been granted by the Executing Court as has been done in the impugned order while dismissing the objection petition of the petitioners.

7. Counsel for the respondent/decree-holder, on the other hand, has urged that it is clear from the Award that interest @ 18% per annum from the date of Award was payable by the petitioner-objectors and they were to pay a sum of Rs.36,75,000/- within six months in four equal installments. It is claimed that when payment has not been made within the stipulated time, interest allowed by the Arbitrator is payable by the objectors-JDs and they cannot escape their liability therefrom.

8. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties.

9. From perusal of the paper book as also t