C.R. No. 3779 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3779 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.07.2010 Improvement Trust Jind through its Chairman, Jind .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Satyawati & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 14.1.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jind, vide which the objections to the execution raised by the petitioner were partly accepted, and the order was passed to calculate the amount payable strictly in accordance with the judgment passed by the Court, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2008(2) HRR 5. The finding recorded by the learned executing Court while disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner, reads as under :- “4. In the considered opinion of the Court, the JD cannot be heard complaining that the calculations are to be arrived as per order C.R. No. 3779 of 2010 -2- ***** dated 2.12.1995 because that order was passed by the Apex Court in a different petition in a different case, whereby the specific question involved was as to how the money paid by DH was to be applied and further regarding the payment of interest of solatium as well as other incidental question arising out of the execution. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.4.2004, passed the final judgment in Civil appeal No. 2789 of 2004 arising out of SLP/Civil No. 6972 of 2000 and Hon'ble Apex Court had restored the order of learned Single Judge in Civil appeal No. 5784 and 5789 of 1998 except the benefit under Section 23-a of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act for short). The decision rendered by the Apex Court in different petition cannot be held to be applicable to this case particularly when in this case the JD has not made the conditional payment by giving prior notice to DH as to how the DH has to apply and appropriate the payment because there is nothing on record to show that JD paid the amounts firstly towards the compensation, then towards interest and finally towards cost. If that is so, then as per the authority of Hon'ble Apex Court in Supra Gurpreet Singh, it is the sweet will of DH as to how the amount received by JD from time to tile is to be adjusted. However, it is true that as per the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 28.4.2004, the DH is not entitled for C.R. No. 3779 of 2010 -3- ***** additional benefit of 12% as amended Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 5. Hence as a sequel to my above detailed discussion, controversy is resolved accordingly and in view of the order passed aforesaid, both the parties to this execution petition shall submit their respective calculations on 09.02.2010.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order can not be sustained, as the decree-holders were required to adjust the amount first towards principal, and then towards interest and costs. Therefore, the impugned order can not be sustained, specially in view of the fact that in the another award, the executing Court had taken different view with regard to the adjustment of amount deposited by the judgment debtor. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be noticed to be rejected. It has not been brought on record by the petitioner, that at the time of deposit of amount any instructions were issued with regard to the adjustment of the amount deposited, in absence of any instructions by the creditor, it is always open to the debtor to adjust the amount first towards interest and costs and then towards principal. This established principle of law stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra). The reading of the impugned order would show, that the impugned order is strictly as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in C.R. No. 3779 of 2010 -4- ***** exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 29.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE