IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 886 of 2007() --------------------- ORDER DATED 29.9.2006 IN E.P.NO.153 OF 2003 IN LAR.155/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU. RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS: ---------------------------- URUMEES, S/O. ULAHANNAN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY KARA, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.886 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2008. O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, in E.P.No.153 of 2003 in L.A.R.No.155 of 1997. Notice was served on the respondent in the petition to condone the delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Notice in the revision petition was also served on the counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Government Pleader was heard at the admission stage. 2. The impugned order shows that balance amount found due was Rs.62,130/=. It was found that judgment debtor has not calculated interest on solatium, and, therefore, State is liable to pay the amount. 3. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Pleader, executing court did not consider the question in the proper perspective. As declared by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), if court has not considered or W.P.(C) No.886 of 2007 2 refused interest on solatium and the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, claimant is entitled to interest, but only from the date of the judgment in Sundar v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489). As learned Sub Judge did not consider this question, the impugned order dated, 29.9.2006, is set aside. Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam, is directed to consider the question afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.