IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 539 of 2005 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.A. 459/04-05 IN EP 1175/94 IN LAR.363/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM ) REVN. PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMMINI, D/O.LATE LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, CHAKATTU HOUSE, NADAMA DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NALINI, D/O. LATE THANKAMMA, -DO- -DO-. 3. BHAGYALEKSHMI, D/O.LATE THANAKAMMA, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.M. RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. No. 539 OF 2005 ............................................................................ Dated this the 10th April, 2008 O R D E R The Revision is filed by the decree holders challenging the order dated 16.12.2004 in Cheque Application No. 459 of 2004 in E.P.No.1175 of 1994 in L.A.R.No.363 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The Cheque Application was filed for an amount of Rs. 2,04,790/- out of the deposited amount. 2. The court below held that on actual calculation, the petitioner is only entitled to Rs.1,60,569/-. The details of the calculation are not stated in the order. Therefore, it is not possible for the revisional court to come to any conclusion as to whether the finding arrived at by the court below is correct or not. It is also not clear from the order as to whether interest on solatium is included in the sum of Rs.1,60,569/-. As held by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India ( [2006] 8 SCC 457), in pending matters the claimants would be entitled to claim interest on solatium as well. 3. An order was passed by this Court on 23.02.2006 directing both the parties to file statements within a month showing the amounts which, according to them, is payable under the award. The order was not complied with by both the parties. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the parties should be given an opportunity to put forward their respective claims before the court below. The parties are at liberty to file claim statements and to put forward their respective contentions as to the amount due under the award. The court below shall pass a speaking order. C.R.P. No. 539 OF 2005 2 For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 16.12.2004 in C.A.No.459 of 2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the manner indicated above. The parties shall appear before the court below on 2nd June, 2008. The parties shall file their claim statements on or before 30.06.2008. The court below shall dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk