Civil Revision No. 8243 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8243 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.07.2011 *** Nirmal Bhalla & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Punjab State & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners-decree holders are aggrieved with order dated 13.9.2010 vide which their execution application has been disposed of being satisfied. Heard. It is evident from records that vide award dated 16.7.1985 compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners on account of death of N.P. Bhalla. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation, the petitioners preferred FAO No. 1264 of 1985 and this Court vide order dated 5.8.1993 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,08,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realization of the amount. Prior thereto, the respondents, on 4.3.1986 and 24.4.1987, had already deposited the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,91,772.70 ps. Respectively. However, after the modification of the compensation amount the respondents further deposited an amount of Rs.5,59,853/-, thereby taking the total to Rs.7,66,625/-. The aforesaid amount was admittedly realized by the petitioners. Now the grouse of the petitioners is that an amount of Rs.2,07,111/- is still due towards the JDs. According to them the amount of compensation paid by the JD has to be appropriated first towards the interest, cost and then to the principal, which has not been resorted to by the learned Executing Court below. In support of Civil Revision No. 8243 of 2010 2 his plea, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the cases of M/s Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate, now called ICDS Ltd. Vs. Smt. Smithaben H. Patel 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 45 and the judgment of this Court in M/s Ramesh Book Depot, Chandigarh Vs. Central Bank of India, Vol. CXLIII(2006-2) 323. I have perused the judgments cited above. The same pertains to the money decree and therein the obligation of the judgment debtor to serve notice on the decree holder in respect of deposits made into the Court, was considered, which is not the situation in the case in hand and hence no benefit can be derived therefrom. Furthermore, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. V. Kala Bharathi & Ors. AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh, 31, similar question was raised viz. “as to whether the amount deposited by the JD under a decree should be adjusted first towards the decreetal or the interest that accrued thereon?” The said case was also under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Court after taking into consideration catena of judgments, held as follows:- “It is evident that Parliament added sub-rules (4) and (5) to O. 21 R. 1 with a definite and avowed object of arresting the running of interest, on the deposits made by the decree-holder, into a Court. Sub-rules (4) and (5) by themselves, do not disclose as to whether the amount should be adjusted towards principal or interest. However, the expression "interest if any", occurring in both the provisions, is significant. A decree may comprise of principal amount, claimed in the suit, as well as a component of interest, up to the date of decree. Once a decree is passed for certain amount, it becomes a principal by itself, and the liability to pay interest thereon, and if so, the rate at which it is to be paid, would depend upon the terms of decree. The amount that carries the interest, till the date of realization, would be the one, stipulated in the decree. It is not permissible for a Court to award interest on interest. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Interest Act clearly Civil Revision No. 8243 of 2010 3 prohibits grant of interest on interest. Therefore, the only component of the decree, that can be related to the expression "interest if any", occurring sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 1, is the decretal amount, which in other words, is the principal.” Accordingly it has been held that the payments made deserve to be adjusted towards principal decreetal amount and not towards interest accrued. In view of the discussion above, the instant revision petition is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) July 19, 2011 JUDGE Jiten