Messrs ECLIPSE DRY CLEANERS and another vs Messrs IMPERIAL CHEMICAL
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a judgment-debtor challenging the recovery of interest on a money decree by the Executing Court. The petitioner contended that the decree itself did not explicitly mention interest due to a clerical error, and argued that the Executing Court lacked the authority to rectify this omission or enforce interest not specified in the decree. Additionally, the petitioner claimed the original judgment granting interest lacked clarity. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding the objection to be hypertechnical. The Court held that the Executing Court, being the same court that passed the decree, could properly address the matter. Furthermore, the Court determined that the judgment, when read in conjunction with the plaint, left no ambiguity regarding the entitlement to interest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that clerical omissions in a decree do not preclude the Executing Court from enforcing the interest clearly granted in the underlying judgment.
- Can an Executing Court enforce interest on a decretal amount if the decree omitted the interest due to a clerical error?
- Is an objection regarding the absence of interest in a decree, where the judgment clearly grants it, considered a hypertechnical objection?
- Does a judgment, when read with the plaint, provide sufficient clarity to support the recovery of interest even if the formal decree contains a clerical omission?
ORDER
' 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.