IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 2980 of 2000(D) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.92/97 IN EP.195/89 L.A.R.NO.77/82 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- MATHI JOSEPH, THEKKUMKATTIL, ANAKAYAM. ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha in E.A.No.92/1997 in E.P.No.195/1989 in LAR.No.77/1982. By an order the executing court has stated that “the counsel has already calculated for a balance of Rs.88,159.13 with interest on 25.11.1999. Hence the petition is dismissed”. It was an application which was filed for determination of the amount by the Government. The questions that arise for determination in the revision are (1) whether the claimant is entitled to get interest on solatium and (2) whether the amount claimed is correct or not. 2. At the outset I may like to say that both these questions are interlinked. The entitlement for interest on solatium has been laid down in Sunder v. Union of India reported in (2001 (3) KLT 489). In para 28 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the : 2 : C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 aggregate amount including solatium”. Subsequently the matter again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457) and the Supreme Court has held as follows: “15. Order 21 Rule 1 provides the modes of paying money under a decree. It stipulates that all monies payable under a decree shall be paid: (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree , or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder in the manner provided, or (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree directs. Sub- rule (2) provides that where a payment is made by deposit into the Court or as directed in the decree, the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post acknowledgment due. On any amount paid by way of deposit into the Court or as directed under the decree, interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of the service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). Thus, Order 21 Rule 1 after its amendment in the year 1976 also contemplates the deposit of the decree amount into Court and the giving of notice thereof to the decree-holder and provides further for cessation of interest from the date of notice to the decree-holder of such deposit”. 3. A reading of the above said paragraph would revel : 3 : C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 that in a case where solatium has been refused by the court and it has become final, the claimant will not be entitled to get any interest on solatium. Secondly when orders of the court are silent about the granting of solatium, it is permissible for the executing court to grant solatium, but it was held that in such cases it can be granted only from the date of the judgment in Sunder Singh case i.e., on 19.9.2001. So in a case where the court has granted interest on solatium by its award, the entitlement is as ordered and it is not restricted from the date of 19.9.2001. So this is a matter the court has to look into for the reason that this Court is not having a copy of the award regarding grant of interest on solatium on the original side. When it is worked out and if it is found that there is entitlement, necessarily the calculation done by the applicant has to be considered and found whether the calculation is correct. So depends upon calculation regarding the interest on solatium one can arrive at a correct amount that is due. It is only on that basis the Government has challenged the correctness of the amount. So in the light of the principles : 4 : C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 laid down in Sunder and Gurpreet cases the executing court is directed to consider interest on solatium and then permit the parties to file statement and find out correctness of the amount and direct the Government if any amount is further due, deposit it within a stipulated time. Parties are directed to appear before the executing court on 16.2.2001. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000 ............................................. 5th January, 2011. O R D E R