' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The grievance in this petition for leave to appeal by a judgment- debtor against a money decree, is that the interest on the decretal amount being recovered by the Executing Court, is without the support of the decree in that behalf.
2. It is not denied that the plaintiff/respondent had sought interest from a specified date till the realisation of the claimed amount. It is also not denied that interest was allowed in favour of the plaintiff/decree-holder by the judgment, which was rendered against the petitioners The only objection is that the typing/clerical error as a result of which no mention was made in the decree prepared in pursuance of the said judgment, could not be corrected by the Executing Court--though it is conceded that the Civil Court, which passed the decree, could make this correction. It is also contended that the grant of interest in the impugned judgment lacks clarity.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The same Court which passed the decree, is the Executing Court although the first presiding officer has, in meanwhile, been transferred. In any case it is a hypertechnical objection and has rightly been ignored. The second argument has no basis, the judgment rendered against the petitioner read with the plaint of the respondent does not leave anything vague/with regard to the interest. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.