The judgment and decree must demonstrate proper reasoning and address key issues, and the grant of interest in execution proceedings must adhere to the reasonable rates specified under relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.), Rajpura in Execution No.10 dated 2.3.2013 vide which such Court had disposed of the execution being fully satisfied against the judgment and decree sought to be executed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs Jang Singh and Varinder Singh had brought a suit against Smt. Dharamjit Kaur and her two minor sons - defendants seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.5.2005 and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs i.e. Rs. 1 lac as refund of the earnest money and Rs. 1 lac as damages. After contest, the said civil suit was disposed of by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Rajpura vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2012 and a decree for alternative relief of recovery was passed. For Subsequent orders see RA-CR-25-2019 The trial Court has not given details of the relief granted and simply mentioned in the judgment that suit of the plaintiffs was being decreed for alternative relief of recovery. However, in the decree-sheet the alternative relief is mentioned as suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs i.e. Rs. 1 lac paid to the defendants as advance at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and Rs. 1 lac as damages and loss of interest and further interest at market rate of 2% per month on Rs. 2 lacs.

3. The plaintiffs had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by way of filing an appeal before learned District Judge, Patiala. However, that appeal was dismissed on 7.11.2012.

4. The decree holders filed an execution application for execution of decree. The JDs came up with an objection petition on the ground that in terms of section 22(1)(B) of the Specific Relief Act, the decree holder is only entitled for the refund of the earnest money and the amount of compensation could only be allowed/awarded in certain cases and that it could be done only when the plaintiff claimed such compensation in his plaint and that while passing the decree no amount of damages and interest and future interest had been granted by the Court and further that interest claimed by the decree holder at the rate of 24% per annum was not justified more particularly when the JDs had already made payment of Rs. 70,000/- on 19.7.2013 to the DHs out of earnest money of Rs. 1 lac. That objection petition was contested by the decree holders stating that the alternative relief with interest sought in the plaint in the suit had been allowed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court and that section 21 of the Specific Relief Act does not For Subsequent orders see RA-CR-25-2019 bar the alternative relief of money paid by the DH as advance and in the alternative relief sought to return of money @ 2% per month till realization. The decree holders prayed for dismissal of the objections.

5. The Executing Court disposed of the objections by following observations:

"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file with their able assistance. Admittedly, the judgment and decree was passed on 8.2.2012, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for alternative relief of recovery and the parties are left to bear their own costs of these proceedings and alternative relief of the plaintiffs was recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-paid to the defendants as advance at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages and loss of interest and further interest and with further interest of market rate of 2% P.M. on Rs. 2,00,000 and issue was framed 4. Whether in the alternative the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs with interest as prayed for? OPP and thereafter suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for alternative relief of recovery and the parties are left to bear their own costs of these proceedings as mentioned above. The JD/objector preferred an appeal qua the said ju