IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 946 of 2005 --------------------- (ORDER ON I.A.NO.625 OF 2004 IN LAR.28/1989 of SUB COURT, MANJERI) REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER//JUDGEMENT DEBTOR,/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI V.T.K. MOHANAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ DECREE HOLDER/CLAIMANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, KIZHEKKE KOVILAKOM TRUST. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. No. 946 OF 2005 ............................................................................ Dated this the 10th April, 2008 O R D E R The District Collector, Malappuram has filed this Revision challenging the order dated 08.04.2005 in I.A.No.625 of 2004 in L.A.R.No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the court of the Sub Judge, Manjeri. Stating that a sum of Rs.18,88,883/- was deposited by the State in excess of the amount actually due to the respondent/claimant and that the petitioner is entitled to get it back by way of restitution, an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioner. The court below rejected that application. The Revision is filed challenging that order. 2. In the Land Acquisition Reference, the court below held that the claimant is entitled to get enhanced compensation. It is stated that th e State had deposited a sum of Rs.82,65,716/- towards compensation. It is also stated that the said amount would include interest on solatium as well. 3. Contending that interest on solatium was not payable and that the amount deposited by the judgment debtor was in excess of the actual amount due, the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.70 of 2000 claiming a sum of Rs.35,28,721/- from the claimant. According to the judgment debtor, this amount of Rs.35,28,721/- was deposited in excess of the amount actually due under the award. The executing court considered all the contentions and held that the claim made by the judgment debtor is unsustainable. It was found that the calculation of interest was rightly done. It was also held that the claimant is entitled to get interest on solatium on the basis of the decision C.R.P. No. 946 OF 2005 2 of the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India [2001 (3) K.L.T. 489 (SC) ] . It was found that the claim to get back Rs.35,28,721/- was unsustainable. E.A.No.70 of 2000 was accordingly dismissed. The judgment debtor has not challenged the order passed by the executing court in E.A.No.70 of 2000. 4. Later, the present Interlocutory Application, I.A.No.625 of 2004 was filed by the judgment debtor on the original side of the Land Acquisition Reference invoking Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same contentions as raised in E.A.No.70 of 2000 were raised by the judgment debtor in the present application as well with the only difference that the amount now claimed by the judgment debtor by way of restitution is a sum of Rs.18,88,883/- with interest. It was contended that the compensation amount was deposited in a bank and the interest was being withdrawn by the claimant. The court below held that the application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable as the decree has not been varied or reversed or set aside in appeal or revision. 5. Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where and in so far as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, the Court which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution. In the case on hand, the decree is not varied or reversed in any appeal or revision or in any other proceeding or set aside or modified in any suit. The decree remains the same. Therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been invoked by the judgment debtor in this case. The finding of the court below on this point is perfectly legal and proper. The court below was also right in holding that C.R.P. No. 946 OF 2005 3 dismissal of E.A.No.70 of 2000 by the executing court rejecting the contentions raised by the judgment debtor would stand in the way of the contention of the judgment debtor in the present application. The present application is barred by the principles of res judicata. Dismissal of I.A.No.625 of 2004 is legal and just. There is no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk