Executing Court Cannot Grant Interest Beyond the Decree; Excess Jurisdiction Was Correctly Set Aside in Revision

An executing court must confine itself to the terms of the decree and cannot enlarge the executable relief by granting interest where the decree did not provide for it. The liability in execution was limited to arrears of salary, gratuity and pension computed on promotional benefits, so the award of interest on the ground of delay was beyond jurisdiction. That jurisdictional error justified correction in revision, and the High Court was right to set aside the interest component.

---

---

Issues: Whether the executing court could award interest in execution when the decree under execution did not grant interest, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with that award in revision.

Analysis: An executing court is confined to executing the decree in accordance with law and cannot enlarge its scope by granting relief not contained in the decree. Here, the executable liability was limited to arrears of salary, gratuity and pension computed on the basis of promotional benefits. The award of interest, though made on the ground of delay and the stand taken in execution, was not part of the decree and therefore amounted to an excess of jurisdiction. Once the executing court acted beyond its authority, the High Court was entitled to correct the jurisdictional error in revision.

Conclusion: The executing court had no jurisdiction to award interest not granted by the decree, and the High Court rightly set aside that part of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: An executing court cannot travel beyond the decree under execution or grant substantive relief, such as interest, that is not contained in the decree; any such order is without jurisdiction and liable to be corrected in revision.

---