JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, C.J.- I have heard the learned Dy. District Attorney on behalf of the revisionist, State Haryana.
2. An execution application had been field by Budh Dev Yadav, respondent, for the grant of interest on the amount decreed. The Executing Court has clearly recorded a finding that in the judgment and decree, there was no direction to pay interest on the principal amount. The judgment is completely silent and actually no interest was granted to the plaintiff on the principal amount. The question that arises for consideration is whether in the absence of a decree for interest in the main judgment which is sought to be executed, can the Executing Court grant interest?
3. In State of Punjab vs. Krishna Dayal Sharma (AIR 1990 SC 2177), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that when the interest is not claimed in the suit and in case no direction is issued by the Court in that regard, the Executing Court cannot grant interest. If it does so, it will be wholly illegal. The right of the decree-holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. The Executing Court is bound by the terms of the decree, it cannot add or alter the decree on its notion of fairness of justice. In view of this decision, the impugned judgment of the Executing Court is clearly illegal.
4. In regard to the second issue, the decree-holder did not press the same, In the circumstances, the revision is allowed, order dated 4.1.1991 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon, is set aside and the execution petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.