IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 865 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN CRP.265/2009 DATED 31/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.B.JAYASURYA B. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.S. RAJAN, KALANGARA HOUSE, KOTTAYAM (DIED LRS IMPLEADED). 2. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY. 3. JAMEELA RAJAN, W/O.K.S. RAJAN (LATE) KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. 4. K.R. SANKAR, S/O.RAJAN, KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. LAKSHMI RAJAN, D/O.K.S. RAJAN, KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.R. SANKAR (2ND PETITIONER IN IA NO.637/2010) R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.865 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.265 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of August, 2011 ORDER This petition for review is filed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of petitioner on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated May 31, 2010 in C.R.P.No.265 of 2009. Learned Government Pleader has invited my attention to paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ((2006)8 SCC 457) and contended that execution petition was not alive in the case and hence respondents are not entitled to get protection of the said paragraph of the decision. It is also pointed out by learned Government Pleader that at any rate, interest payable is only from 19.09.2001 on which day the decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001(7) SCC 211) was rendered but, executing court is calculating interest from the date of notification. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the order dated May 31, 2010 be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel for respondents contended that observation regarding closure of execution petition referred to in paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of R.P.No.865 of 2010 -: 2 :- India (supra) is not merely for a closure for statistical purpose but, a closure as the decree is satisfied which did not happen in this case. So far as second ground is concerned, it is pointed out that it is open to the petitioner to object to the calculation made before the executing court (interest on solatium) from the date of notification. 3. In paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court after laying down the law on the point has held that 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 judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India (supra) (19.09.2011) and not for any prior period. 4. So far as the first contention of learned Government Pleader is concerned, the observation “and not in closed executions” must be understood as a proceeding in execution closed for full satisfaction of the decree and not merely execution petition disposed for statistical purposes. Adopting such a view would defeat the very object for which the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) was rendered. The observations in paragraph 54 is not that only if execution petition is pending that solatium can be claimed. R.P.No.865 of 2010 -: 3 :- 5. So far as objection regarding the date from which interest is claimed by respondents is concerned, a further clarification is not required since in paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) it is held that such interest is payable from 19.09.2001 and not for any prior period. Nobody can therefore claim interest on solatium for any period prior to 19.09.2001. If any claim for a period prior to 19.09.2001 is preferred by the respondents it is open to the petitioner to object that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred above and the executing court is bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondents points out that the decision in Secretary, Technical Education, U.P and Ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and Anr. ((2007)4 SCC 492) referred to in the order sought to be reviewed does not apply to the facts of the case. I make it clear that the said decision will have no bearing on the decision of C.R.P.No.265 of 2009. With the above clarification, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-