EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 1 of 21

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 6

th

February, 2026

Pronounced on: 15

th

April, 2026

+ EX.S.A. 4/2019

BRIJ LAL & SONS .....Appellant

Through: Tilak Raj Gogia, in-person, Partner of

Appellant-Firm.

versus

DDA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Pulak Gupta

and Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, read

with Order XXI Rules 11, 58 with the Sections 96/100 of the Civil Procedure

Code, 1908

1

, and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks the

following prayers: -

“a. Allow the second appeal as "an appeal u/s 10 of the Delhi high

court act read with order 21rule 11,58 with the section 96/100 of

the cpc and also 227- ci for quashing and setting aside against the

order dated 27.11.2018, (impugned order) vide RCA 27/15, m-

1

For short, ‘CPC’

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 2 of 21

1448/16 page – 43 dt 1/6/16 passed by Mr. Surya Malik Grover adj-

01, south east court, saket, new delhi.

b. and pay the interest as per the award rate from 18.01.1989 to last

payment somewhere made on 19.03.2013 on Rs. 53000/- which

come to

approximately 1.5 lakh.

c. Allow the further interest as per the court directed.

d. Allow the cost bear in the trial court approximately 1.5 lakh.

e. Allow the any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the

case may also be passed.”

2. The present appeal assails the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 passed

by learned Additional District Judge-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New

Delhi, whereby, the application under Order XLVII read with Section 114 of

the CPC filed on behalf of the appellant seeking review of order dated

01.06.2016 was dismissed. The appellant is seeking pendente lite and future

interest in respect of Claim No.8 in award dated 23.02.1995 which has been

allegedly granted to him by learned Arbitrator and not paid to him in

execution by the respondent/DDA.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present second appeal read

as under: -

i) Learned Sole Arbitrator passed an Award on 23.02.1995 in the matter

of arbitration titled as, “M/s Brij Lal & Sons v. Delhi Development

Authority” which had arisen out of an Agreement No.: 35/EE/SWD-

5/ACS/86-87. The said agreement was in respect of work of RCC counterfort

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 3 of 21

retaining wall at C/o 112, MS Flats at Katwaria Sarai. Learned Arbitrator

adjudicated on total 15 claims and counter-claims of the parties, and awarded

an amount of Rs.5,36,650/- including an amount of Rs.1,32,673/- towards

interest in respect of claim Nos.15 and 7 from 11.10.1989 to 26.02.1995, i.e.,

during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. It is pertinent to note that

Claim No.7 was for ‘compound interest for blocking of money after

completion’, and Claim No.15 was for ‘Claim 20% p.a. compound interest

pre-suited and back-dated from the actual date of payment to till payment’.

Claim no. 8 (which is the issue in the present appeal) was for loss of business

for withheld money by the respondent with effect from June, 1988 till this

day. In the Arbitral Award, ‘this day’ in Claim No.8 has been mentioned as

“11.06.1991”. The relevant observations of learned Arbitrator in respect of

Claim No.8 read as under: -

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 4 of 21

ii) Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before learned

Arbitrator for rectification of some typographical errors in the aforesaid

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 5 of 21

Award by way of a corrigendum in exercise of powers under Section 13 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, (for short, ‘A&C Act). Learned

Arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 13(d) of the A&C Act on

04.03.1995 issued a corrigendum in respect of Award dated 23.02.1995

rectifying certain typographical errors. The said corrigendum to the arbitral

award dated 23.02.1995 is reproduced hereinbelow: -

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 6 of 21

iii) The appellant then filed a Suit No.1573/95 before this Court for making

the said Award Rule of the Court. In the said suit, respondent/DDA raised

certain objections to the award with respect to Claim Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and

15, 8, 11, 12, and 13. Learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment

dated 24.09.2001 dismissed the objections filed on behalf of the

respondent/DDA and the aforesaid Award dated 23.02.1995 was made Rule

of the Court. Decree in terms thereof was passed, and it was observed that the

appellant/petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of

decree till its realisation. Decree of the even date was drawn in favour of the

appellant in terms of this judgment.

iv) In terms of the aforesaid decree, the respondent made a total payment

of Rs.8,93,227/- including interest as awarded by this Court to the Appellant

vide cheque No.830720 dated 09.08.2002, and the same is also admitted case

of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant again moved to Court vide

execution petition, Ex. No.226/2002, demanding Rs.4,00,479/- plus 18%

interest on the said amount. In response filed by the respondent/DDA

(judgment debtor), it was admitted that earlier the interest was calculated upto

30.06.2002 whereas payment was made on 09.08.2002, and therefore, after

calculating the remaining interest again, which came out to be Rs.5,313/-, the

same was paid to the decree holder(s)/appellant vide cheque No.359056 dated

28.06.2004.

v) On 16.09.2007, the appellant approached Chairman, DDA/respondent,

Vikas Sadan, by way of notice of the even date, and claimed Rs.80,000/-

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 7 of 21

along with interest 12% per annum w.e.f. 18.01.1989 till the date of actual

payment. In this letter, he stated that a sum of Rs.8,93,227/- had been paid to

him in 2002 out of the decretal amount. But due to inadvertence, the aforesaid

corrigendum dated 04.03.1995 was not taken into consideration while

calculating the decretal amount, which was paid to him, and request was made

to make payment of Rs.80,000/- along with 12% p.a. w.e.f. 18.01.1989 till the

date of actual payment within one month from the date of receipt of the letter,

failing which he should be compelled to file an execution petition for the said

amount.

vi) Another execution petition, Ex.P.No.348/08, was filed by the appellant

before this Court seeking total balance amount of Rs.80,000/- along with 12%

p.a. from the date of award, i.e., 23.02.1995, till the date of actual payment. In

this execution petition, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the

full amount of the Award dated 23.02.1995 was not recovered in the earlier

execution. This execution petition was disposed of by learned Coordinate

Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2011, by observing that the

respondent/judgment debtor has already paid full amount against the orders

dated 24.09.2001 and 20.01.2004 to the appellant-decree holder and nothing

more is due against the respondent/DDA in this respect. The relevant portion

of the judgment dated 14.10.2011 reads thus: -

“3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that vide agreement

No.35/EE/SWD-5/DDA/ACS/86-67_the decree holders were

awarded the work for execution C/o 112 M.S Flats at Katwaria

Sarai, S/H C/o R.C.C.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 8 of 21

4. Thereafter, certain disputes arose between the parties which

were referred to the Sole Arbitrator.

5. After considering all the submissions made by the parties, the

learned Arbitrator vide award dated 23.02.1995 awarded an amount

of Rs.5,36,650/- in favour of the decree holders and against the

judgment debtor alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the

date of award i.e. 23.02.1995 till the realization of the amount to

the decree holders.

6. As per the decree holders till the filing of this petition, they had

received part payment of Rs.8,93,227/- (Rs.5,36,650/- plus simple

interest from the date of award till the date of actual payment).

7. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the judgment debtor it is

stated that the award dated 26.02.1995 passed by the arbitrator was

challenged by the DDA. This court, after hearing the case

dismissed the objections of the department and the award was made

a rule of the court along with interest @ 12% from the date of

decree till the realization of the amount to the decree holders.

8. Therefore, total amount of Rs. 8,93,227/- was paid to the decree

holders vide cheque No.830720 dated 09.08.2002.

9. Thereafter, the decree holders again moved to court vide Ex.

No.226/2002 demanding Rs.4,00,479/- plus 18% interest on the

said amount. In response filed by the judgment debtor/DDA it was

admitted that the earlier the interest was calculated upto 30.06.2002

whereas payment was made on 09.08.2002 and therefore, after

calculating the remaining interest again, which came out to be

Rs.5,313/- the same was paid to the decree holders vide cheque

No.359096 dated 28.06.2004.

10. It is further stated by the JD that the decree holders vide their

letter dated 16.04.2007 addressed to the Chairman/DDA. Vikas

Sadan, claimed Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. w.e.f.

18.01.1989 till the date of actual payment.

11. Admittedly the JD have already paid full amount against the

order dated 24.09.2001 and 20.01.2004 to the decree holders and

nothing more is due against the JD/DDA in this respect.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 9 of 21

12. Further it is stated that the review application to the order dated

24.09.2001 filed by the decree holders has also been dismissed by

the court vide order dated 09.02.2007. The copy of the said review

petition has also been filed by the JD/DDA. Hence the amount

claimed by the decree holders is not liable to be paid by the

JD/DDA.

13. The present petition along with the pending EA's is disposed of

as no further orders are required to be passed.”

vii) An appeal, EFA (OS) 16/2012, was filed on behalf of the appellant

assailing judgment dated 14.10.2011 passed in the aforesaid execution

petition which was dismissed by learned Division Bench of this Court, vide

order dated 23.01.2013 by observing as under: -

“Admit.

Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

At the request of the partner of the appellant and the learned

counsel for the respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

The matter pertains to execution of an Award dated 23.02.1995

which was subsequently amended by the corrigendum (dated

04.03.1995. The Award mentioned the amounts under each claim

which had been awarded but the effect of the corrigendum dated

04.03.1995 was that the date of completion of the contract was to

be read as 18.01.1989 instead of 11.10.1989 which in turn had an

effect on certain claims regarding computation of the period as

under:-

(i) Claim Nos. 7 and 15 read together as interest had been

awarded at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,05,600/- from 11.10.1989

(which would now be read as 18.01.1989) to 26.02.1995.

(ii) Claim No. 8 as the amount awarded was Rs. 6000/- per

month from 11.10.1989 till 11.06.1991 which would now be

commencing from 18.01.1989 instead of 11.10.1989.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 10 of 21

Learned counsel for the respondent states that while the

corrigendum was issued, the amounts were consequently not

changed in the Award and the appellant subsequently withdrew his

objection to the Award. He thus submits that the executing Court

ought not to go behind the Award.

In so far as the principle propounded by the learned counsel for the

respondent is concerned, there is no dispute. However the

corrigendum cannot be made meaningless as if the effect of the

corrigendum on the Award is not given effect to, then the

corrigendum would really amount to being treated as having no

effect on the Award. The sequitur to the corrigendum would be that

the relevant amounts in the Award would change upon the date of

completion being changed in the Award as per the corrigendum.

We are thus of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the

aforesaid two amounts and we grant four weeks time to the

respondent to make payment of these amounts failing which it will

be open to the petitioner to take out execution proceedings qua

these amounts.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.

Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of

the Court Master.”

(emphasis supplied)

viii) Thereafter, respondent by way of an application, C.M. No.4144/2013,

sought extension of time for paying award amount to the appellant, in which

following order was passed on 19.03.2013 by learned Division Bench: -

“Learned counsel for the respondent states that the

application has become infructuous as the amount has been paid to

the appellant. However, the appellant states that the full amount has

not been received i.e. the interest on Claim No. 8.

Learned counsel for respondent states that if the appellant is

still aggrieved he can take out execution.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 11 of 21

Application is dismissed as withdrawn.”

ix) Thereafter, execution petition, Ex.No.12/13 filed by the appellant

before learned District Judge was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2014 by

observing as under: -

“By way of present execution the DH seeks to recover interest

against delayed payment made by the JD in terms of. the award

dated 23.02.1995, which was made rule of the Court on 24.09.2001

by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 1573/1995 and a

decree was passed. It is an admitted case of the JD that entire

payment as per the award has been received, by him but no

interest was paid by the JD from the date of award till the date

of realization i.e. 12.03.2013 qua the claim No.8 of the award.

I have perused the award as well as the decree passed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. No future interest was awarded in

favour of the DH against claim No. 8 and hence, he cannot recover

any such interest from the JD. The execution petition is without

merit. It is therefore dismissed and stands disposed off.

File be consigned to Record Room.”

(emphasis supplied)

x) An appeal, RCA No.27/2015, against the aforesaid order was preferred

by the appellant wherein following order was passed by learned ADJ-01,

South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 01.06.2016: -

“This is an appeal arises out of order dated 13.03.2014

passed by the court of Ms. Jyoti Kler, Ld. JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, South

East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

Appellant has raised objections to the impugned order

submitting that Ld. Trial Court has riot taken into consideration the

corrections made by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in the Award. Further the

Ld. Trial Court has not gone through the order dated 19.03.2013 of

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 12 of 21

Hon'ble Delhi High Court to which the appellant has. filed the

execution.

Reply to the appeal has already been filed on behalf of

respondent/DDA.

I have heard the arguments and gone through the record as

well as impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court.

The grounds of appeal taken by the appellant have already

been dealt in the order of Ld. Trial Court. The only grievance with

the regard to interest.

It is seen that the interest part has been clearly described in

the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no future

interest was awarded therein. Hence, Ld. Trial Court has rightly

held that the appellant cannot recover any such amount which has

not been granted to him by order.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order of Ld. Trial Court and thus, appeal deserves dismissal and the

same is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this

order Appeal file be consigned to record room.”

xi) Subsequently, an application under Order XLVII read with Section 114

of the CPC seeking review of order dated 01.06.2016 was filed by the

appellant which was dismissed by learned ADJ-01, South-East, Saket Courts,

vide the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 by observing as under: -

“By virtue of this order, application seeking review of

application under Order 47 r/w Sec. 114 CPC is being disposed of.

It is argued by Ld. Counsel for applicant that pendente lite

and future interest has not been recovered by the Decree Holder and

execution application was disposed of by Ld. ASCJ vide Order

dated 13.03.2014. Appeal was filed against the said Order which

has also been dismissed. The present application has been moved

praying that the Ld. Appellate Court has committed error apparent

on the face of the record by neglecting to look into the Order dated

23.01.2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court whereby the Award

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 13 of 21

passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator had been corrected and interest

had been granted. Hence, the Order / Judgment dated 01.06.2016

may be reviewed and pendente lite and future interest may be

granted in favour of DH.

In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for DDA has submitted that no

future interest was granted either by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator or by

the Hon'ble High Court and therefore Appeal has been rightly

dismissed and there is no scope for review of the impugned order.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions

advanced in the light of the judicial record.

At the outset, the scope of review of Order/Judgment is

extremely limited as the jurisdiction of the review Court job is

limited to the aspect of any error apparent on the face of the record.

In the present case, it has already been held by the Ld. ASCJ

that no future interest had been granted to the Decree Holder

qua claim no. 8, which observation has been upheld by my Ld.

Predecessor, the Appellate Court.

The applicant is aggrieved that the Appellate Court has

failed to consider Order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the

Hon'ble High Court vis-a-vis the issue of pendente lite and

future interest.

I have looked into the same to understand if there is any

material irregularity in order dated 01.06.2016 on account of

non-conseration of Order dated 23.01.2013. By virtue of the

said Order, Hon'ble High Court had changed the duration of

monthly amount awarded to the DH as awarded by the Ld. Sole

Arbitrator from 11.10.1989 to 18.01.1989 and also granted four

weeks time to the Respondent / JD herein to make payment of

the same. It is undisputed that payment was subsequently made

on 04.03.2013 to the DH/petitioner. As such, I am satisfied that

the JD complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court

within 4 weeks and also no future interest was granted to the

DH vide Order of the even date.

In view of aforesaid, the present application seeking

review of Order dated 01.06.2016 stand dismissed, as meritless.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 14 of 21

File be consigned to record room.”

(emphasis supplied)

xii) Hence, the present second appeal has been filed assailing the aforesaid

order dated 27.11.2018, inter alia, the prayers, as noted hereinbefore.

4. Tilak Raj Gogia, who is a partner of the Appellant-Firm, has argued the

present appeal in-person. He has submitted that learned Execution Court has

not taken into consideration the fact that he was awarded future interest and

the same has not been granted to him during the execution proceedings

initiated by him. He has further submitted that the pendente lite and future

interest has not been recovered by the appellant and execution application was

erroneously disposed of by learned ASCJ. He has further submitted that the

respondent had paid interest on decretal amount of Claim No.8 to the

appellant during first execution proceedings. He has further submitted that the

respondent had not taken into consideration the amendment letter dated

04.03.1995 while making the payment to the appellant in terms of the Rule of

this Court. It is the case of the appellant-firm the same is an error apparent on

the face of the record and learned Courts below had overlooked the same.

Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and pendente lite as well as future

interest awarded to the appellant in terms of the award dated 23.02.1995 as

Ruled vide judgment dated 24.09.2001 be provided to him.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA submitted that the present

second appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking the future interest on

the award which was not granted by learned Arbitrator. It is further submitted

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 15 of 21

that the subject Award has been fully satisfied and the entire payment in

respect of the said award including Claim No.8 has already been made to the

appellant. Further, the directions of learned Division Bench of this Court vide

order dated 23.01.2013, has been duly complied with by the respondent. It is

the case of the respondent that the present appeal does not involve a

substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 of the CPC. The appellant

has failed to establish the maintainability of the present appeal in absence of

any substantial question of law. It is further submitted that the second appeal

lies solely on the ground of substantial question of law and does not lie

against erroneous findings of fact. Reliance has been placed on the judgment

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh

2

, in support of this

contention by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA.

6. It is further submitted that the appellant has been duly paid the entire

awarded amount along with interest of 12% per annum and the present appeal

lacks merit, and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability

as well as on merits. As per respondent, total payment of Rs.8,93,227/-

including interest as awarded by this Court was paid to the Appellant by the

respondent vide cheque No.830720 dated 09.08.2002.

7. It is further submitted that no pendente lite and/or future interest was

ever awarded to the Appellant in Claim No.8, neither in the original award

nor by this Hon’ble Court and the same is duly observed by the learned ADJ

while disposing of the review application, appeal and execution petition.

2

(2000) 3 SCC 708

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 16 of 21

Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 does not suffer from any

illegality and infirmity and the same does not require any interference.

8. Heard appellant in-person, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA and

perused the records.

9. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that he has not been paid

pendente lite and future interest by the respondent in respect of award amount

against Claim No.8, and seeks the same.

10. Perusal of the record shows that learned Arbitrator vide Award dated

23.02.1995 had awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- against Claim No.8 of

pertaining to loss of business for withheld money by the respondent/DDA

with effect from June 1988 (18.01.1989-date changed by way of corrigendum

dated 04.03.1995) till this day, i.e., 11.06.1991, without interest as noted

hereinbefore. The said award was made Rule of the Court vide judgment

dated 24.09.2001 and a decree in terms thereof was passed in favour of the

appellant. It is pertinent to note that said Award was not challenged and has

attained finality.

11. In terms of the aforesaid decree, the respondent made a total payment

of Rs.8,93,227/- including interest as awarded by this Court to the Appellant

vide cheque No.830720 dated 09.08.2002, and the same is also admitted case

of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant again moved to Court vide

execution petition, Ex. No.226/2002, demanding Rs.4,00,479/- plus 18%

interest on the said amount. In response filed by the respondent/DDA

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 17 of 21

(judgment debtor), it was admitted that earlier the interest was calculated upto

30.06.2002 whereas payment was made on 09.08.2002, and therefore, after

calculating the remaining interest again, which came out to be Rs.5,313/-, the

same was paid to the decree holder(s)/appellant vide cheque No.359056 dated

28.06.2004.

12. In execution petition, Ex.P.348/2008, filed by the appellant, vide

judgment dated 14.10.2011 learned Coordinate Bench had observed that the

judgment debtor/respondent has already paid full amount against order dated

24.09.2001 and 20.01.2004 to the appellant and nothing more is due against

respondent/DDA in this respect. It was further noted that the appellant had

also preferred a review application to order dated 24.09.2001 (order by which

the Award in the present case was made Rule of the Court and decree was

drawn) which was also dismissed by the Court vide order dated 09.02.2007.

Learned Coordinate Bench while disposing of the execution petition filed on

behalf of the appellant for balance amount of Rs.80,000/- along with simple

interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of award, vide judgment dated 14.10.2011

had observed as under: -

“11. Admittedly the JD have already paid full amount against the

order dated 24.09.2001 and 20.01.2004 to the decree holders and

nothing more is due against the JD/DDA in this respect.

12. Further it is stated that the review application to the order dated

24.09.2001 filed by the decree holders has also been dismissed by

the court vide order dated 09.02.2007. The copy of the said review

petition has also been filed by the JD/DDA. Hence the amount

claimed by the decree holders is not liable to be paid by the

JD/DDA.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 18 of 21

13. The present petition along with the pending EA's is disposed of

as no further orders are required to be passed.”

13. Thereafter, a challenge to the aforesaid judgment was disposed of by

learned Division Bench vide order dated 23.01.2013 in EFA(OS) 16/2012 by

observing that relevant amount in the award would change upon the date of

completion being changed in the award by of corrigendum dated 04.03.1995,

and further direction with respect to payment of said claims within four

weeks’ time was given to the respondent. However, there was no mention of

interest on Claim No.8.

14. Perusal of the record shows that no pendente lite and/or future interest

on Claim No.8 was granted to the appellant by learned Arbitrator by Award

dated 23.02.1995 as also by the corrigendum dated 04.03.1995. If such was

the case, then the appellant could have agitated the same while review of the

Arbitral Award dated 23.02.1995 was sought which was dismissed vide order

dated 09.02.2007. The appellant admittedly has been paid entire decretal

amount in terms of the Rule of this Court way back in 2002 and 2004 by way

of separate cheques as noted hereinbefore, and no dispute with respect to

payment of future and/or pendente lite interest, as claimed now, was raised on

behalf of the appellant at that time. It is noted that the appellant has not denied

having received the payment from the respondent/DDA in terms of orders

dated 24.09.2001 and 20.01.2004. Further, the calculations placed on record

from Office of Executive Engineer, DDA, shows that no interest was ever

calculated or paid by DDA on the decretal amount of Claim No.8. Even after

necessary change in date of completion in accordance with corrigendum dated

04.03.1995, there was change in period for which loss of business for

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 19 of 21

withheld money by the respondent/DDA was to be given by the latter;

however, no pendente lite and/or future interest was calculated or paid on

behalf of respondent/DDA to the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the

appellant that he had received interest on decretal amount of Claim No.8 or he

was paid interest by respondent/DDA while making payment in initial

execution proceedings is misconceived. The calculations provided and placed

on record by the Office of Executive Engineer, DDA, with respect to detail of

interest calculation and amount in respect of other calculations including

Claim No.8 was also not disputed by the appellant in the earlier execution

proceedings. It is only after receiving the payment from respondent/DDA

issue of pendente lite and future interest has been raised by the appellant in

respect of Claim No.8. The calculations with respect to award amount were

all this while available with the appellant, and same was also not agitated

while objections on behalf of the respondent in Suit No.1573/95 were dealt

with nor at the time when rectification application to the award was filed on

behalf of the appellant. Even after the corrigendum, it is pertinent to note that

only the period for completion was changed. With respect to Claim No.8,

there was no direction/change in the pendente lite and future interest. The

argument of the Appellant that the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by learned

Division Bench in appeal, EFA (OS) 16/2012, has not been considered is not

tenable as there was no such observation with respect to payment of pendente

lite and future interest in respect of Claim No.8.

15. Even otherwise, the present appeal being a second appeal also does not

raise any substantial question of law. This Court being a second appellate

Court cannot go behind the decree/award and decide disputed question of fact.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 20 of 21

It is further noted that the decree drawn in terms of judgment of learned

Coordinate Bench dated 24.09.2001 has been satisfied on the payment made

by respondent/DDA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh (supra) had

observed as under: -

“7. It is to be reiterated that under Section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the

High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals

which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any

jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact

while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. That apart, at

the time of disposing of the matter the High Court did not even notice the

question of law formulated by it at the time of admission of the second

appeal as there is no reference of it in the impugned judgment. Further,

the fact-finding courts after appreciating the evidence held that the

defendant entered into the possession of the premises as a batai, that is to

say, as a tenant and his possession was permissive and there was no

pleading or proof as to when it became adverse and hostile. These

findings recorded by the two courts below were based on proper

appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was no

perversity, illegality or irregularity in those findings. If the defendant got

the possession of suit land as a lessee or under a batai agreement then

from the permissive possession it is for him to establish by cogent and

convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to

the knowledge of the real owner. Mere possession for a long time does

not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession.

(Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar [(1994) 6 SCC 591] ) Hence, the

High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact

recorded by both the courts below.”

16. In these facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned

order dated 27.11.2018 does not call for any interference.

17. The present appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

EX.S.A. 4/2019 Page 21 of 21

19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA

(JUDGE)

APRIL 15, 2026/bsr/ns