1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 76/1991 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & others VERSUS Jambukumar Krishanasa Bhure & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.W. Sambre, counsel for the appellants. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the R-2 to 6. Shri H.V. Thakur, counsel for the R-10. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 12, 2010 . C.A.F. NO.676/2010. By this civil application, the respondent nos.2 to 6, the original claimants seek interest on the amount of compensation granted by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants seriously opposes the prayer made in this civil application. The respondent no.10-insurance company has nothing much to say in the matter as the liability to pay the compensation is not fastened on the insurance company. It is necessary to note that the applicants-plaintiffs had not claimed any interest on the compensation sought by them. Though it is well settled that interest can be granted by a Court under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in the absence of a prayer in regard to the same, in the facts 2 and circumstances of this case, the prayer for grant of interest is liable to be rejected for the reason that this Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others and held that they are not liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs-applicants. In such circumstances, any modification of the decree passed by the trial Court would affect the co-respondents in this case i.e., the respondent nos.7 to 9. It is necessary to note that the respondent nos.7 to 9 are not represented before this Court either at the time of the admission of the appeal or after they have been served on merits. A copy of this civil application is not served on the respondent nos.7 to 9. It is further necessary to note that any modification in the decree passed by the trial Court at this stage, on an application filed by the applicants, would be detrimental to the interest of the respondent nos.7 to 9, who are now solely held liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiffs. Though grant of interest normally should be the rule, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made in this civil application cannot be granted and the decree passed by the trial Court cannot be modified so as to grant interest on the compensation amount payable to the applicants. 3 The civil application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE APTE