MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--This direct appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 16-7-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court at Circuit Bench, Abbottabad.
2. The facts in small compass giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,11,32,000 as damages against the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haripur. The trial Court vide judgment dated 10-9-1986, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs,4,88,448 with cost and compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of payment of decretal amount. The respondents being aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed in the suit, filed regular first appeal bearing No,10 of 1987 in Peshawar High Court at Circuit Bench, Abbottabad and a learned Single Judge in the High Court modified the decree in appeal vide judgment dated 4-6- 1991, The appellants have assailed the judgment of High Court before this Court in Civil Appeal No,229 of 1991 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22-12-1992 and the decree passed by the trial Court for payment of compensation/damages assessed therein was restored with the direction to the appellants to surrender the land to WAPDA. During the pendency of suit, the appellants on the direction of the trial Court had deposited a sum of Rs,7.30,953.60 in the National Bank of Pakistan and subsequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 9-10-1994. The appellants on 14-1-1990 filed a petition for execution of decree and pending final disposal of execution petition, the decree-holders on 31-7-1994, with the permission of Court, withdrew the above amount with interest (Total Rs,9,51,160) from the Bank and also moved a separate application before the executing Court for payment of balance decretal amount with compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of payment. This application was allowed by the executing Court vide order dated 9-10-1994 and the respondents being aggrieved of the above order of the executing Court filed a civil revision in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad and a learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment allowed the revision petition with the following observations:- "4. It would be thus in the peculiar attending circumstances of the case held, that WAPDA etc. Could not be burdened with payment of any additional amount on the decretal amount by way of compound interest. The learned Courts below have as such conveniently ignored this important aspect of the case and erred in the exercise of jurisdiction. I would be as such constrained to accept this revision petition by setting aside the judgments and decrees impugned with a further order, that the respondents shall be paid the decretal amount as stood deposited before the Executing Court on 2-5-1998 if not paid earlier. No order as to cost's."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants were. Entitled to the payment of 8% compound interest on the decretal amount from the date of cause of action till final realization of the decree and if the appellants wore not -entitled to the payment of the interest for the period prior to the filing of suit, the same could not be denied from the date of institution of suit. Learned counsel submitted that appellants having no notice of deposit of the decretal amount in Court in terms of Order 21, rule 1, C.P.C., would be entitled to the payment of 8% compound interest under section 34, C.P.C., till the withdrawal of Rs,9,5:,160 on 1-8-1994 from Bank but the learned Judge in the High Court in departure to the provisions of section 34, C.P.C., denied the legitimate right of interest in illegal manner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that in absence of a specific order of payment of compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, the interest would be payable on the decretal amount from the date of the decree and not from the date of institution of the suit.
5. With a view to appreciate the above contention, we deem it proper to examine the provisions of section 34, C.P.C., which provides as under:-
(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal stub adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit, therefore, shall not lie."
6. The examination of section 34, C.P.C., shows that interest can be awarded for the period firstly, from the date when the payment was due till the date of institution of suit, secondly from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thirdly, from the date of decree till the realization of decretal amount. The award of interest under section 34, C.P.C., from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of amount is discretionary with the Court and cannot be claimed as of right. The interest for the period prior to the institution of suit Can only be claimed and awarded if it is permitted by the substantive law or it is specified in writing or in the demand notice but no such interest prior to the period of suit under section 34, C.P.C., can be granted in a decree passed in the suit for damages in absence of the substantive law or if is not specified in writing in any form.
The learned counsel has not been able to show us any such law or document under which the appellants could claim the interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit. Under section 34, C.P.C., the Court in its discretion can grant interest from the date of suit till the realization of the decree and if the discretion is exercised in favour of grant of interest in terms of section 34, C.P.C., it shall be deemed from the date of suit and not from any previous date. The decree in the present case with interest was passed in terms of section 34. C.P.C.. Therefore, the appellants would be entitled to the interest from the date of suit.
7. There can be no cavil to the proposition that if a notice is not given to the decree-holder regarding the deposit of the decretal amount in Court, the decree-holder can justifiably demand the interest as the deposit of the decretal amount in Court without notice' is not the payment of the amount to the decree-holder in terms of Order 21, rule 1, C.P.C., The learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective stand has placed reliance on the following case-law on the question relating to the requirement of notice under Order 21, rule 1, C.P.C:-- Abdulali P. Jivani v. Pakistan (1984 CLC 3257), Punjab State v. Ishar Singh (AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 241), Lahore Development Authority v. Own Homes Service Ltd. (PLD 1983 Lahore 475), Rangpur Raiyat Bank v. Hesabuddin (AIR 1932 Calcutta 111)
Ramanathan v. Ramanathan (AIR 1960 Madras 207), and S.I. Railway Co. v. M.C. Mayilvahanan (AIR (30) 1943 Madras 334). It was held that in the above cases that notice under Order 21, rule 1, C.P.C., to the decree-holder is necessary. However, in Mt. Amtul Habib v. Muhammad Yousaf (AIR 1918 Allahabad 234), a contrary view was taken wherein it was held that in execution of a money decree, if aportion of decretal amount was paid in Court, the interest would cease to run on such amount from the date of deposit.
8. The Court in exercise of its discretion under section 34, C.P.C., can allow interest from the date of institution of a suit till the date of the decree and also from the date of decree to the date of payment but the Court under this section cannot grant interest for the period prior to the institution of the suit in its discretion as the interest for the period before the date of the suit being a matter of substantive law can only be allowed if there was a statutory provision or an express understanding between the parties specifying the date of interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, there was no question of grant of interest for the period prior to the institution of suit. The next question would be whether in absence of a specific order, the decree-holder will get interest from the date of institution of suit or from the date of judgment and decree and if the decretal amount was deposited in Court without notice, which would be the date of payment of interest to the decree-holder. In the present .Case, the amount was deposited in Bank under the direction of the Court before the passing of the decree but no notice of deposit was given to the appellants decree-holders.. The appellants have pleaded knowledge of the deposit of the decretal amount in Bank shortly before its withdrawal and nothing was brought on record to suggest the prior knowledge of the appellants, therefore, in absence of any notice the appellants would be entitled for payment of interest on the decretal amount from the date of suit till the date of withdrawal of amount.
9. In the light of foregoing discussion, we hold that the appellants shall be entitled to the payment of interest at the rate specified in the decree on the decretal amount from the date of suit till the withdrawal/realization of the decretal amount. The judgment of the High Court impugned herein is set aside and this appeal, in the above terms, stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.