S.M. Munawalli Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 47: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] execution objection by judgment debtor - held, for the purpose of allowing an objection filed on behalf of a judgment-debtor under section 47, it is incumbent on him to show that the decree was ex facie nullity. for the said purpose, the court is precluded from making an indepth scrutiny as regards the entitlement of the plaintiff with reference to not only his claim made in the plaint but also the defence set up by the judgment debtor. as the judgment of the trial court cannot be reopened, the correctness thereof cannot be put to question. it is also well-known that an executing court cannot go behind the decree. where on a fair interpretation of the judgment, order and decree passed by a court having appropriate jurisdiction in that behalf, the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff appear to have been granted, there is not reason as to why the executing court shall deprive him from obtaining the fruits of the decree. in the instant case, the trial court decreed the suit inter alia holding that it was admitted that the plaintiffs had been getting lesser pay as compared to other co-employees and thus on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work and being senior to the other employees could not be deprived of the scales of pay allowed to their juniors. thus, relief had been granted upon taking into consideration not only the declaratory relief prayed for but also the relief for mandatory injunction. the executing court had rightly rejected the objection to the execution petition raising a contention that a mere declaratory relief having been passed in favour of the decree holder, they were not entitled to the arrears of pay. having regard to the nature of the decree passed, it was executable. whether by reason of the decree the plaintiffs would be getting some amount by way of back wages for a period of more than three years would depend upon the facts of each case. it would also depend upon the date on which the cause of action of suit arose. it was also not a case where the supreme court could exercise its jurisdiction under article 142 of the constitution of india to mould an order. the decree passed by the trial court has attained finality. whether rightly or wrongly, the judgment of the trial judge has been affirmed by the supreme court. it was one thing to say that no right having crystallized in favour of a party to the lis, the supreme court could mould the relief appropriately, but it was another thing to say that despite the decree being found to be an executable one, the supreme court would refuse to direct execution thereof.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. heard the learned counsel for the parties. it is apparent that the order dated 18-8-1995 passed by the karnataka administrative tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') dismissing the petition solely on the ground of limitation is erroneous because in the present matter the appellant claims that his pension should be fixed on the basis of his seniority after taking into consideration his past service in agricultural produce market committee, ramadurga. the dispute with regard to the pension arose only on 28-2-1993. the application was filed before the tribunal in 1995. hence it cannot be said that it was barred by delay. in this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the tribunal is quashed and set aside. the tribunal is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits and consider whether as per rules the previous services rendered by the appellant in other department as contended by him can be taken into consideration for determining the pension payable to him,4. the appeal is disposed of accordingly. no order as to costs.