IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2577 OF 2009 DATED:20.8.2010 Between: The Managing Director, A.P.S R.T.C, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .....PETITIONER AND Dora Linganna & others. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2577 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the Managing Director, A.P.S R.T.C aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 in E.P.No:42 of 2005 in O.P.No:89 of 1984 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. E.P.42 of 2005 is filed by the decree holders under order 21 rule 43 and 64 C.P.C seeking to order for deposit of the decreetal amount. By order dated 9.2.2009, in addition to the other observations, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nizamabad allowed the E.P holding that in view of the former decision of this Court reported in SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION FOR ESSAR GUJARAT LITD. KAKINADA VS. CHELIKANI CHIRANJEEVI ([1]), the petitioners-decree holders are entitled to claim interest at 12% for the enhanced amount. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the appeals filed by the Corporation on one hand, aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the Court below and the Decree holders on the other, seeking further enhancement of compensation, since the amounts are not paid to the decree holders, the present E.P is filed. There is no dispute as to the entitlement of the amount by the decree holders pursuant to the order passed by the Court below. The only question is as to the quantum of amount, to which the decree holders are entitled and also as to the extent of the amount, for which the Corporation is liable to pay. The learned Standing appearing on behalf of the Corporation while drawing the attention of this Court to the memo filed by the Corporation showing the entitlement of the decree holders contended that the decree holders are entitled to only a certain amount and they are not entitled for the amount already withdrawn by them. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-decree holders while drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of account, submitted that if calculation is made in two spells, the decree holders are entitled to more compensation as set out in the statement of accounts and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. While submitting that the Court below had not committed any error, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-decree holders that without interfering with the order impugned, the matter may be remitted back to the Court below directing to consider the calculation memos filed by both the parties arithmetically and pass an appropriate order pursuant to the directions of this Court, for which the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has conceded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the order impugned herein, this revision petition is disposed of with a limited direction as under: Both the parties are given liberty to file the calculation memos along with an appropriate application and on filing the same, the Court below shall consider the application by taking into consideration the calculation memos filed by both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:20.8.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2577 of 2009 20th AUGUST, 2010 [1] 2006(6) ALT 26