[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Brij Lal & Sons vs Dda on 15 April, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 6th February, 2026
Pronounced on: 15th 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, 19081, 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-
For short, 'CPC'
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
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: -
ii) Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before learned
Arbitrator for rectification of some typographical errors in the aforesaid
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: -
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/-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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 Singh2, 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.
(2000) 3 SCC 708
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
(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.
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
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.
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.
19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026/bsr/ns
