IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 C.R.P.No.1741 of 2003(E) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2003 IN EP.660/2001 IN LAR.55/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS --------------------------------------------------- 1. P.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O. LATE UNNIMAYA NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, THAYYUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. P.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. LATE RADHA NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, THAYYUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 3. P.BALACHANDRAN, S/O. LATE RADHA NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, THAYYUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 4. P.INDIRA, D/O. UNNIMAYA NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, THAYYUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENT/JEDGMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R), (GENERAL), THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P No.1741 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 ORDER The decree holder in L.A.R.55/1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur is the petitioner. He filed E.P.660/01 advancing claim for interest on solatium and that was dismissed by the court below and hence, this revision. 2. It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457) that even if the matter has come to a close, if claim has been advanced at least in the E.P for interest on solatium, it should have been granted especially in the light of the decision of this Court interpreting the aforesaid decision and that interest can be claimed on solatium even if it is not provided in the decree provided it is claimed in the C. R. P No.1741 of 2003 -2- execution petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is enough that he claims interest by filing an execution petition in the court below. 3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable on the facts and circumstances of this case. The decree holder in L.A.R.55/88 filed E.P.144/98 for realisation of the amount due under the award in L.A.R.55/88. The amount as per the execution petition has been deposited by the State and the execution petition was closed recording full satisfaction. The above fact is recorded in para 5 of the impugned order and that fact is not disputed before me. The court below has also observed that the amount so deposited by the State was received also by the decree holder/claimant and that a fresh execution petition advancing a claim for interest on solatium is not maintainable. The C. R. P No.1741 of 2003 -3- decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself goes against his argument that the petitioner is entitled to interest on solatium in the instant case. In para 54 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case (cited supra) it has been specifically clarified that interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and that the execution court will be entitled to permit recovery of interest on solatium from the date of judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489 SC) and not for any prior period. The Apex Court further clarified that it will not entitle any re- appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. The case in hand is one wherein interest on solatium had not been claimed in E.P.144/98 which was filed long before the decision in Sunder's case (cited supra) and the said E.P was closed recording full C. R. P No.1741 of 2003 -4- satisfaction consequent on deposit of the entire amount covered by the E.P. by the judgment debtor/State. In the circumstances, a fresh execution petition claiming interest on solatium is not maintainable. The court below has rightly dismissed the claim so advanced in E.P.660/01 vide order impugned. I confirm the said order and dismiss this C.R.P. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-