IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1094 of 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/06/2004 IN IA 2031/2003 IN LAR.5/1987 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS: 1. KUNJU UTHAMAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KARETTE, PULIMATH VILLAGE. NARAYANAN DAMODHARA (DIED). 2. KESAVAN SUMATHI, THYKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, AVANAVANCHERRY GRAMAM AND VILLAGE. 3. SUBHASHINI, SUBHASH BHAVAN, DO DO. 4. S. SUJATHA, THYKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, DO. DO. 5. D. PURUSHOTHAMAN, THYKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, DO. DO. D.PEETHAMBARAN (DIED) 6. S. SUDHAMONI, SEENA BHAVAN, KARETTE, PULIMATH VILLAGE. 7. S. SUJANANI DEVI, R.K. MANDIRAM, CHENNANCODE, VADASSERIKONAM, VARKALA. 8. D. PADMAKUMAR, THYKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, AVANAVAMCHERY GRAMAM AND VILLAGE. (REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 HEREIN REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.KUNJU UTHAMAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KARETTE, PULIMATH VILLAGE (1ST REV.PETITIONER)). BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: COUNGER PETITIONER/RESPONDNET: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1094 OF 2004 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.2031 of 2003 in L.A.R.No.5 of 1987, on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal, to review the judgment dated 29.11.1997 and to incorporate a specific provision granting interest on solatium in the decree and judgment. The application was filed on the basis of the decision in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489 (SC)). 2. The court below dismissed the application on two grounds: (1) A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not a ground to review the judgment; and (2) The judgment and decree of the reference court have merged in those passed in L.A.A.No.90 of 1999, which arose from L.A.R.No.5 of 1987. 3. In Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457), the Supreme Court held as follows: “One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the C.R.P. NO.1094 OF 2004 E :: 2 :: awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an 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 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. We also clarify 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 (19.09.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.” 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh's case, I.A.No.2031 of 2003 is unnecessary. It follows that the revision petitioners would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution. On a perusal of the judgment in LA..R.No.5 of 1987, it is clear that the reference court has not specifically refused to grant interest on solatium. As noted in Gurpreet Singh's case, nothing is mentioned about interest in the judgment. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, C.R.P. NO.1094 OF 2004 E :: 3 :: the petitioners are entitled to claim interest on solatium in the execution proceedings. In the result, I dispose of the Civil Revision Petition in the following manner: In view of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case, it is not necessary to pass any order in I.A.No.2031 of 2003 and the said application is closed. The findings rendered by the court below in I.A.No.2031 of 2003 are set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution even without getting the decree corrected. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/