: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2008 IN REGULAR DARKHAST NO.10 OF 2007 Reserve Bank of India ....Applicant V/s. Shankuntala G. Shirale & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Zal Andhyarujina with Mr.Amol Bavare i/b M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for the Applicant. Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Applicant in this Civil Revision Application has challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division directing it to pay an amount of Rs.1,84,444/- being the family pension in respect of one Govind Parshu Shirale, who was employed by the Applicant. 2. The Respondent had not been paid the said amount despite their having produced a succession certificate dated 7.10.2002. The Applicant did not pay the said amount to the Respondents despite the succession certificate in view of the nature of an : 2 : order dated 8.3.2001 forwarded by the Respondents to the Applicant. By the said order, an application by a lady alleged to be the first wife of the deceased, was rejected. The order was based on an alleged settlement arrived at inter-vivoce. The Applicant declined to make the payment to the Respondents as the said order did not contain a finding that the alleged first wife had been divorced. Apparently the rules of the Applicant mandate payment only to the legally wedded wife. 3. As regards the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the Respondents, the point is covered against the Appellant by a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of - Shashikala A. Kisan Awad v. Divisional Office, Central Railway, Mumbai, 2005(4) Mah.L.J. 753. 4. The apprehension of the Applicant that it may not receive a discharge of its liability is unfounded. The payment is made pursuant to an order of the Court. The liability of the Applicant will therefore stand extinguished to that extent. 5. Mr.Andhyarujina, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant however submitted : 3 : that the present case is distinguishable on two grounds. Firstly, he stated that there is nothing to indicate that the rules of the Respondents in that case were similar to the rules of the Applicant. Secondly, he submitted that there had been no regular darkhast at all. I am not able to agree. Paragraph 14 of the judgment does not limit the scope of its effect in this manner. 6. The payment shall be made by the Applicant within eight weeks from today. 7. In the impugned order also, no interest had been granted. This order has not been challenged by the Respondents. It is not possible for me to grant interest. However, this order will not preclude the Respondents from making an application for interest which if made will be decided on its own merits. 8. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.