This appeal has been filed against the order dated 14th December 1980 passed by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in Execution Application No. 4 of 1979.
1. The brief facts of the case are that by judgment and decree passed on 27th May, 1977 the plaintiff/respondent was granted a decree in F.C. Suit No. 56 of 1969 by the 11 Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad for a total sum of Rs. 60,907 with proportionate costs and 5% interest ,from! The date of Suit till payment.
Thereafter, on 1st March, 1979 execution application was filed which was registered as Execution Application No. 4 of 1979. The said learned 11 Senior Civil Judge as Execution Court, ordered attachment of certain properties of the judgment debtor/the appellant.
2. Against the writ of attachment so issued, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. At the time of arguments in support of the appeal the following grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-
(i) that the decree-holder has not paid Court-fee on the interest which has accrued pendente lite.
(ii) The articles sought to be attached are exempt from attachment under Section 25 of the Electricity Act, 1910, and (i.e) That President of Pakistan had not been joined as a party to the suit.
4. The first objection relates to non-payment of court-fee on the interest which has been allowed in the decree from the date of the suit till payment. Suffice it would be to observed that no additional stamp is required to be paid on the amount of claim for interest from the date of the institution of the Suit until payment. Under section 34, C. P. C.P.C the award of interest pendente lite is within the discretion of Court passing the decree.
(ii) As regards the objection to the attachment of certain articles referred to by the learned counsel for appellant, it is not necessary to go into this question as the decretal amount has already been deposited in the Court and the respondent/decree holder is satisfied if the amount is allowed to be withdrawn by him. The learned Counsel for decree--dolder is no longer interested in attachment of property of judgment-- debtor.
(i.e) As to the last objection that the President of Pakistan had not been shown as a party in the suit it may be pointed out that the execu--tion Court is required by law to execute the decree as it stands and it cannot go beyond the decree. It is significant to note that the appellant/ judgment- debtors had not filed any appeal against the decree passed against them. The decree has attained finality against appellants who are bound by the same:
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby ordered that the amount deposited towards the decree by the judgment-debtors/appellants shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent/decree-holder without furnishing any security.
If any further claim of the decree-holder is found to have remained unsatisfied, he would be at liberty to take appropriate legal proceedings. The appeal, is dismissed: There shall however be no order as to costs.