IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 857 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2007 IN EP.NO.219/2001 IN LAR.17/1990 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT R BINDU RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS --------------------------- 1. M.M.BABU, MANRKATTU HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR, PALAI. 2. TOMY MATHEW, MANRKATTU HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR, PALAI. 3. RAJANKUTTY, MANRKATTU HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR, PALAI. 4. MACHEL MATHEW, MANRKATTU HOUSE, MIZHATHADIYOOR, PALAI. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R1 TO R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP No. 857 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2008 ORDER State is challenging the order of Principal Sessions Judge, Kottayam in E.P.219 of 2001 in LAR 17 of 1990 dated 15.1.2007 whereunder executing court fixed the balance amount due as Rs.1,86,260/-. 2. Learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondents/decree holders were heard at the admission stage. 3. The order passed by learned Sub Judge does not show how the balance amount of Rs.1,86,260/- was fixed. Learned Government Pleader argued that though interest on solatium was claimed, appellate court did not grant interest on solatium and therefore though in view of the decision in Sunder V. Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489), interest is payable on the entire compensation amount including solatium and benefit under Section 23(1)(a), as explained in Gurpreet Singh V. Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457) when the question of interest on solatium was considered and rejected, the claimant is not entitled to the same. It was pointed out that learned Sub Judge CRP 857/2007 2 did not consider this aspect. The impugned order shows that learned Sub Judge did not consider entitlement of interest on solatium or the benefit under Section 23(1)(a). In such circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Sub Judge, Kottayam is directed to pass fresh order in E.P.219 of 2001, fixing the actual amount due, considering the question whether decree holders are entitled to interest on solatium as well as the benefit under Section 23(1)(a), and if so from which date in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-