IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6001 of 2001 Date of decision: 5th February, 2010 State of Haryana and another … Petitioners Versus Sheo Kumar Saha and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28th August, 2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh in Execution Application preferred by the respondents. The Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh had passed the following order: “Heard, Ld. Counsel for the DH has stated at bar that DH has already received the payment of decretal amount, however interest on the decretal amount has not been paid by JDs and DH is entitled for interest on the amount already paid by the JDs. On the other hand ld. GP has stated at bar that no interest was allowed to DH, as such, DH is not entitled for any interest and the present execution is liable to be dismissed being fully satisfied. 2. After hearing the rival contentions of ld. Counsel for DH and GP for the State I have found that it has already been held by their Lordships of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgment reported in SLR, 1987 (4) 503 that in execution of the decree of reinstatement in service, the Civil Revision No.6001 of 2001 petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of decree. In view of the law laid down by our own High Court the JDs cannot be allowed to say at this stage, that no interest has been allowed to DH in the execution of the decree in questions. JDs are therefore, directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount already paid by JDs and the case stands adjourned to 30.9.2001 for payment of interest. Sd/- Civil Judge, Jr. Division Anncd. 28.8.2001 Chandigarh.” Counsel for the State has contended that the payment of interest @ 12 percent per annum is excessive and is not in consonance with prevailing rate of interest. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that at the time when decree was passed rate of interest prevailing was 12 percent per annum. However, he has further submitted that since the amount is not being paid, he will be satisfied if the Court reduces the rate of interest awarded by the Executing Court. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the order of the executing Court can be modified to the limited extent. Respondent decree holders will be entitled to payment of interest @ 6 percent per annum. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 5, 2010 rps 2