EX.F.A. 11/2022

Page 1 of 7

$~70(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

EX.F.A. 11/2022 & CM No.26506/2022, CM No.26507/2022

ADHUNIK SECURITY SERVICES

….. Appellant

Through:

Mr.

Rahul

Shukla

and

Ms.Sayantani Basak, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

….. Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

1.

This petition, stated to have been preferred under Order XXI

Rule 58(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) assails the

following order, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the

learned ADJ) in Execution Civil 33/2017 (Adhunik Security Services

v. NHAI):

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

31.05.2022

“EX CIVIL 33/17

M/S AUDHNIK SECURITY SERVICE Vs. NATIONAL

HIGHWY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

25.02.2022

Present:

Sh. Rahul Shukla, Ld. Counsel for DH through

VC.

Sh. C.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for JD.

Ld. Counsel for DH stated that the dispute is regarding

para no. 31(iii, iv, v) of the Arbitral Award. Ld. Counsel for

DH further stated that as per the amount mentioned in the

entry no. 31(iii) and 31(iv), there is dispute regarding interest

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002198

EX.F.A. 11/2022

Page 2 of 7

and the amount mentioned in the para no. 31(v), no any

amount has been paid on behalf of opposite party. It is

submitted by Ld. Counsel for DH that as per the section

31(7)(b), the DH is entitled for interest @ 2% higher than the

current rate of interest if award is not making provision for

interest on a particular amount. On the other hand, Ld.

Counsel for JD stated that the issue of interest has already

been decided in the award and JD has already made payment

of the awarded amount, therefore, they are not liable to pay

any further interest as per Section 31(7) (b).

I have considered the submissions of both parties and

have also gone through the relevant provision. Section

31(7)(b) reads as “A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral

20.05.2022.”

2.

To my mind, this appeal, at this stage, is not only not

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002198

EX.F.A. 11/2022

Page 3 of 7

maintainable but is completely misconceived. Order XXI Rule 58(4)

reads thus:

“58.

ADJUDICATION

OF

CLAIMS

TO,

OR

OBJECTIONS TO ATTACHMENT OF, PROPERTY.

****

(4)

Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated

upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the

same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal

or otherwise as if it were a decree.”

3.

An appeal would lie, under Order XXI Rule 58(4) only where

there is adjudication of a claim or objection under Order XXI Rule

58(4), and, in such event, the adjudication is eligible to be treated as a

decree and is subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise

as would apply to a decree. Appeals against decrees, lie, under the

CPC, under Section 96 which reads thus:

“96. Appeal from original decree.

(1)

Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body

of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force,

an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court

exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear

appeals from the decisions of such Court.

(2)

An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex

parte.

(3)

No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court

with the consent of parties.

[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a

decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small

Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the

original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees.]]”

4.

“Decree”, is defined, in Section 2(2) of the CPC thus:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002198

EX.F.A. 11/2022

Page 4 of 7

“(2) “decree”

means the formal expression of an

adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it,

conclusive