IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 2258 of 2002(F) ----------------------- EA NO.454/2001 IN EA NO.1108/2000 IN EP MO.281/1996 IN LAR.3/1993 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDERS: ------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI KURIAKOSE, SON OF KURIAKOSE, MANAYATH MANICKANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, UDAYAMPEROOR. 2. MONCY KURIAKOSE, SON OF KURIAKOSE, MANAYATH MANICKANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, UDYAMPEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AREA MANAGER, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-20. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.2258 of 2002 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010. ORDER This revision arises at the instance of claimants/decree holders from the decision of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Ernakulam on E.A.No.454 of 2001 refusing to review the order on E.A.No.1108 of 2000 in E.P.No.281 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.3 of 1993. Petitioners filed execution petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,27,279/-. Respondent No.1/judgment debtor No.1 filed E.A.No.1108 of 2000 to record full satisfaction of the decree. Learned Sub Judge vide order dated 24.02.2001 allowed E.A.No.1108 of 2000. Petitioners filed E.A.No.454 of 2001 to review the order dated 24.02.2001 allowing E.A.No.1108 of 2000 contending that they are entitled to get interest on solatium and additional market value. The learned Sub Judge relying on the decisions in State of Kerala v. Mytheen Pillai (1996 (1) KLT 587), Mathunni Mathai v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 812) and Kapur Chand Jain v. State Govt. of H.P. (1999 (2) SCC 89) has held that no interest can be allowed on solatium. Accordingly, learned Sub Judge refused to review the order on E.A.No.1108 of 2000 and dismissed E.A.No.454 of 2001. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions in Sunder v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211] and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Jaswant Singh (2008 (4) KLT 142). CRP No.2258/2002 2 2. As per decision in Sunder v. Union of India (supra), “compensation includes interest on the whole amount including the solatium”. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Jaswant Singh (supra) it is stated that interest on solatium is payable even when the decree does not provides for same in cases where the claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the reference court or appellate court. Going by the above decisions petitioner is entitled to get interest on solatium. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements order of learned Sub Judge holding that petitioners are not entitled to get interest on solatium cannot be sustained. It follows that the order passed by the learned Sub Judge on 24.02.2001 allowing E.A.No.1108 of 2000 without taking into account the interest payable on solatium is not sustainable and, is liable to be reviewed. Resultantly this Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 10.04.2002 dismissing E.A.No.454 of 2001 is set aside. E.A.No.454 of 2001 is allowed and consequently order dated 24.02.2001 on E.A.No.1108 of 2000 (in E.P.No.281 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.3 of 1993) will stand reviewed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks CRP No.2258/2002 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. C.R.P.No.2258 of 2002 ORDER 16th September, 2010.