HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.1406 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in E.P.No.59 of 2007 in O.P.No.264 of 1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Court failed to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v Union of India[1]. In para 36 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as follows: “Can a claimant or decree-holder who has received the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded, claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the appellate Court has enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation? We have already referred to Order 21 and Order 24 of the Code to point out that such a blanket reopening of the transaction is not warranted even in respect of a money decree. Section 28 of the Act indicates that the award of interest is confined to the excess compensation awarded and it is to be paid from the date of dispossession. This is in consonance with the position that a fresh reappropriation is not contemplated or warranted by the scheme of the Act. But if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree-holder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs”. In view of the above judgment and as conceded by both the counsel, both parties may putforth their claims and file calculation memos and argue the matter and the lower Court is directed to examine the same and pass order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 31st March, 2011. PNV [1] (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457