1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant's land had been acquired, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC, he filed reference and the Referee Judge enhanced the compensation by determining the market value, but in such decision, the compound interest in terms of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not allowed. Subsequently the appellant sought the compound interest in the A garb of recalculation of the amount due to him which request was so allowed by the Executing Court. However on appeal, the learned High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and dismissed the application of the appellant.
2. We have heard the appellant in person and find that no decree ever was passed in his favour by the Referee Judge in terms of section 34 granting him compound interest and this decision was not challenged by the appellant either in review or appeal, therefore such decree attained finality.
2. Obviously the Executing Court in the facts and circumstances could not modify the decree and go beyond it. The judgment reported as Government of Sindh and 2 others v. Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others (1996 SCM R 1361) wherein it was held that "Accordingly the executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution application and to recalculate the decretal amount "in terms of the above modification". In this Court's judgment dated 3-11-1992, it was held that "there is a marked distinction between drawing of a decree and calculation of the amount in terms of the decree.
3. The Court's duty is to draw a decree in terms of the judgment, whereas it is for the decree-holder to calculate the amount in terms of such a decree and it is for the judgment-debtor to point out calculation mistake, if any, but the judgment-debtor cannot challenge the merits of the decretal items while challenging the calculation of the decretal amount," is distinguishable on its own facts.
4. It was never held in the judgment (supra) that while executing the decree and ascertaining the exact amount payable there under in the process of calculation, the Executing Court could grant a relief to the decree-holder which was never awarded to him under the decree. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.