JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a Civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 30.10.1982 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was entitled to a charge of Rs.29,000/- on the property of the insolvent firm M/s Bawa Cycle Store on the basis of equitable mortgage in his favour. Arvinder Kaur, respondent purchased the property of the insolvent, i.e. the house, vide Sale deed dated 4.8.1965 in her favour prior to the order dated 9.9.1977 of the Insolvency Court declaring her property liable to auction. The appellant also filed a suit for the recovery, of Rs.29,000/- and got the property is possession of Arvinder Kaur attached in execution of the decree passed in his favour. The parties agitated their claims right upto the Hdn’ble High Court and the matter v as set at rest by the judgment dated 13.3.1974, passed in RSA No.46 of 1968 (K.C. Manchanda v. Arvinder Kaur and
Ors.), vide which the following order was passed:-
“I, therefore, partly accept the appeal and decree the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is an equitable mortgagee of the property in dispute for Rs.29,000/-. I, however, dismiss the same regarding the other prayer and hold that the house is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree in suit No. 198 of 1965 passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 2 to 4. In view of the partial success of the appeal, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout”.
3. K.C. Manchanda filed an application before the Insolvency Court for the payment of interest on the amount of equitable mortgage, i.e.
Rs,29,000/-. However, the Insolvency Judge rejected that application vide order dated 28.1.1981. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the court of Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in para-3 of the order which read as under:- .
” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The appellant-applicant was held entitled to an amount of Rs.29,000/- on account of equitable mortgage in his favour by, the Hon’ble High Court. The operative order of judgment of High Court has been reproduced above. The claim of the appellant-applicant has been admitted only to the extent of Rs.29,000/-. The Insolvency Court has rightly held that it could .not go beyond the finding of the Hon’ble High Court by admitting the claim of the applicant for grant of interest on this amount. 1 also find no reason to travel beyond the said order of the Hon’ble High Court regarding the extent of claim of the appellant-applicant on the basis of equitable mortgage in his favour. The findings of the Hon’ble High Court are clear in terms and it cannot be interpreted to include the payment of interest also on this amount in favour of the appellant by this court at least.”
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.1982, the present revision.
4. Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the parties. I am disposing of this revision with the assistance of the record which is before me.
5. It is a settled principle of law that the court cannot go behind the decree. Earlier, Mr. Manchanda filed a suit for declaration and his rights were declared and adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court in the judgment, the operative portion of which I have already reproduced above, in which the claim of Mr. Manchanda to the tune of Rs.29,000/- was recognised. There was no direction by the High Court for the payment of interest. In these circumstances, the Insolvency Judge could not grant the interest to the petitioner. From the terms directions of the order/decree, there is no indication that the High Court ever declared or decided that the petitioner will be entitled to interest. Rather, the order of the Hon’ble High Court was specific to the effect that the other prayers of the petitioner stood dismissed.
Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this revision and dismiss the same. No costs.