C.R. No.6696 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6696 of 2001 Date of Decision: 24.08.2009 State of Haryana and another .....Petitioners Versus Yunesh Kumar and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana for the petitioners None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision challenges the order passed in execution by the Additional District Judge, Hissar directing that the amount which the judgment debtor was depositing was to be first appropriated towards interest, then towards costs and then towards and the solatium and the principal amount. The order that has been passed takes into account the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely M/s Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Vs. Smt. Smithaben H. Patel and others AIR 1999 SC 1036 that a creditor is not bound to accept the mode indicated by the debtor while making payment and the general rule of adjustment that will have to be followed is that the amount deposited shall only be adjusted towards interest and costs and then towards the principal amount. The judgment debtor could not have asked for a different mode of appropriation so long as there were C.R. No.6696 of 2001 -2- outstanding interest and costs payable and by a unilateral declaration by a judgment debtor that the amount will be appropriated in a different fashion, the decree-holder was bound to accept the same. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 207 that a decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the amounts due under an award arising out of land acquisition proceedings on the general principle of appropriation namely first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. The attempt of the learned counsel was to show that if there had been a different mode of appropriation that the judgment debtor was seeking that shall be considered as a proper mode of discharge of liability under a decree. I do not find any ground urged even in civil revision that the judgment debtor was seeking for a different mode of appropriation than what the law generally allows for and this decision, therefore, cannot come to the aid of the revision petitioner to fault the basis of the order that is impugned in the revision. 3. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2009 Pankaj*