IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1929 CRP.No. 1144 of 2004() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2004 IN EP 75/1998 IN LAR.17/1993 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, SON OF ALI AKBAR, JAMEELA MANZIL, CHOODUPALAKA JUNCTION, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.ANWAR HUSSAIN SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2007, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1151 OF 2004 CRP NO. 1152 OF 2004 CRP NO. 1155 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- C.R.P No. 1144,1151,1152 & 1155of 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November 2007 ORDER All the decree holders are the revision petitioners in the above L.A.R. cases. In all these cases the revision petitioners/decree holders claimed interest on solatium . The execution court held that the revision petitioners/decree holders are not entitled to interest on solatium as per the decree and so the revision petitioner/decree holders cannot claim the same. The Execution court directed the revision petitioners/decree holders to file a revised statement excluding their claim for interest on solatium. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioners/ decreeholders brought to my notice, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 457 and the decision of this court reported in Sankaranezhuthassan Vs. State of Kerala 2007 (4) K.L.T 492 . 3. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court referred above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The court below is directed to pass orders in accordance with the dictums laid down in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) and in Sankaranezhuthssan's case (supra) HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es