The Bombay High Court (Coram: Amit Borkar, J.) addressed whether an executing court can interpret a decree to restrict interest on the decretal amount to a specific date and adjust reciprocal liabilities contrary to the explicit terms of the decree. The court quashed the executing court's decision and directed recalculation of the decretal amount per the original decree and provisions of the CPC.

1. Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Sharadchandra Ramkrishna Deshmukh (deceased), represented by his heirs.
• Respondent: Kuldeep Builders and its partners.

2. Background of the Case

• The petitioner filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 419 of 2000) concerning a development agreement, alleging non-compliance by the respondent in payments and construction.
• Trial Court partially decreed the suit on 31st March 2005, awarding monetary relief with interest and creating a charge on specific properties.

3. Decree Summary

• Defendants to pay:
  1. ₹44,07,750/- with 18% interest on ₹38,00,000/- till realization.
  2. ₹15,00,000/- with 18% interest from 17th April 2000 till realization.
  3. ₹5,84,000/- with 18% interest from the date of suit till realization.
• Plaintiff to pay ₹17,00,000/- to defendants, with the adjustment mechanism provided.

4. Dispute During Execution

• The judgment-debtor proposed deductions from the principal amount and limiting interest to the date of the counterclaim (10th January 2001).
• The decree-holder contested these calculations, arguing they contradicted the decree's terms.

5. Executing Court's Findings

• Applied Order XXI Rule 19, CPC, permitting reciprocal adjustments.
• Deducted ₹17,00,000/- from the principal amount before calculating interest.
• Restricted interest to the counterclaim date.

6. High Court's Analysis

1. On Interest Calculation:

   • The decree explicitly states interest "till realization," disallowing limitation to an earlier date.
   • Precedent (e.g., V. Kala Bharathi & Ors.) mandates strict adherence to decrees.

2. On Adjustment Mechanism:

   • Order XXI Rule 19 allows set-offs but does not override explicit decree terms.
   • ₹17,00,000/- should be adjusted post-interest calculation, not deducted from the principal beforehand.

7. High Court’s Decision

• The executing court's order was quashed, and recalculation of dues was directed.
• Strict compliance with the decree's terms and CPC provisions was mandated.
• The execution case, pending for two decades, was ordered to conclude within six months.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India: Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
   • Order XXI Rule 19: Adjustment in execution involving reciprocal claims.
   • Order XXI Rule 1: Appropriation of payments toward interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Interest awarded by a decree must be calculated until realization unless explicitly restricted.
• The adjustment of liabilities (Order XXI Rule 19) cannot override or alter explicit decree terms.
• An executing court cannot modify a decree during execution.

Subject:

The dispute concerns the execution of a decree involving reciprocal monetary liabilities between a decree-holder and a judgment-debtor, focusing on the interpretation of interest accrual and adjustment under the decree.

• Execution of Decrees
• Interest on Decretal Amount
• Reciprocal Liabilities
• Order XXI, CPC
• Development Agreements