IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 664 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN EP 212/90 IN LAR.79/1985 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS: ADDL.DECREE HOLDERS 2 TO 14: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY, W/O.VARKEY, PALAMATTOM GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM. 2. P.V.JOSE, S/O.VARKEY, DO. DO. 3. P.V.SKARIAH, S/O.DO. DO. 4. P.V.JAMES, S/O. DO. DO. 5. SIBY.P.VARGHESE, S/O. DO. DO. 6. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. DO. DO 7. THRESSIAKUTTY. P.V. (SR.JULIANA JOSEPH, D/O.VARKEY LITTLE FLOWER MISSION HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O. COLONYPADY, ALUVA 5. 8. MATHEW PALAMATTOM, S/O.VARKEY PALAMATTOM HOUSE, AMALAGIRI, KOTTAYAM. 9. P.V.GEORGE, S/O. DO. PALAMATTOM, THELLAKOM, KOTTAYAM. 10. MARIYAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, MANAMEL HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA, CHANGANACHERRY. 11. ELSAMMA, W/O.PIOUS MATHEW CHERUKARA HOUSE, MUTHOALPURAM, ELANGI, ERNAKULAM. Kss ..2/- \ ...2...... C.R.P.NO.664/2005 12. MOLY, W/O.GEORGE, JOSEPH OTTATHIL HOUSE, NALUKODY, CHANGANACHERRY. 13. ROSILY, W/O.SEBASTIAN XAVIER, MEPRATHUSSERY HOUSE, MITHRAKKARI, ALAPPUZHA. PETITIONERS 7 TO 9 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PETITIONER NO.6. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.664 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of February 2008 O R D E R This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Prl.Sub Court, Kottayam in E.P.No.212 of 1990 in LAR No.79 of 1985. The question that arises for determination in this case is regarding the non- awarding of interest on the amount of solatium. The court below extracted the decree and held that since there is no express provision and as it cannot be said that it is by implication allowed interest cannot be calculated on the solatium. This position has been clarified by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India(2006) 8 SCC 457). In paragraph 54 of the judgment the court made it clear that it is true that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the CRP664/2005 -:2:- award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. The Apex Court also clarified that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder(19-9-2001) and not for any prior period. Therefore, I direct the court below to apply the dictum laid down in Sunder's case and recalculate the amount and find out whether the exact amount entitled to is deposited. If any contention is raised regarding appropriation, that may also be considered as the decision referred to above makes it clear how it has to be done. The court below shall try to CRP664/2005 -:3:- dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. C.R.P is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-