FAO No.2361 of 1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2361 of 1999 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: April 27, 2011 SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GURBACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. K.S. SIVIA, DAG, PUNJAB. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. At the time when the matter is brought for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State states that the case was disposed of before the Lok Adalat on 25.1.2002, when a proposal was made for payment of enhancement of `1,29,000/- and to secure the instructions from the Advocate General, the Lok Adalat had provided for two months time to give concurrence to make the payment. Learned counsel for the State states that the payment had indeed been made before the Tribunal at Kapurthala and a copy of the letter addressed to the Advocate General, Punjab by the General Manager is also produced to the effect that the amount had been deposited on 12.6.2002. As regards the service on decree holder, it was stated in the letter that a registered letter had been sent on 10.2.2003, intimating the fact of deposit, but it was received back with the remarks “Left without address”. This according to him would mean a compliance of FAO No.2361 of 1999 (O&M) -2- the award passed by the Lok Adalat and that it would constitute a complete discharge against the decree holder. 2. Although the case is posted only for arguments of the case on an assumption that the award had not been passed and that the case has to be dealt with on merits, in view of the fact that the decree holder has filed C.M. Nos.4086 and 4087 of 2003 to execute the award in terms of the enhancement made by the Lok Adalat, I take it that the parties understood the Lok Adalat's deposition as having become final. Surprisingly, the State has not filed a counter even to these applications pointing to the fact that there has been already a deposit and the amount was received by the Nazar, District & Sessions Court, Kapurthala as early as on 12.6.2002. The mode of making the payment under a decree is provided under Order XXI Rule I Clauses (1) and (2) which are relevant for the purpose of this case. Order XXI Rule I Clauses (1) and (2) are as under:- “1. Modes of paying money under decree.-(1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:- (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a Bank, or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c) otherwise, as the Court, which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub rule (1), the judgement-debtor shall give notice FAO No.2361 of 1999 (O&M) -3- thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgement due.” The above provision which deals with the procedure requires that a decree holder is informed about the deposit either through Court or by a notice of such deposit to the decree holder through the communication sent by a registered post with acknowledgement due. The alleged attempt of the petitioner to serve a notice nearly 8 months after the deposit and that too without obtaining a due acknowledgement cannot constitute a discharge of liability by the judgement debtor. I have already observed that even in the application filed by the decree holder in enforcing the award, the Government has not replied coming out of details of deposit before the Tribunal at Kapurthala. The enhancement has been to an extent of `1,29,000/-, but the Government has deposited only `1,25,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has had an occasion to deal with the effect of making deposit without serving a notice of deposit to the decree holder in Rajasthan SRTC vs. Poonam Pahwa (1997) 6 SCC 100. The Government shall, therefore, become liable to interest for all the period from the date when the Lok Adalat had passed the award which by the conduct of the Government shall be that it accepted the enhancement as suggested by the Lok Adalat. The liability of the State shall be for payment of interest at 7.5% on `1,29,000/- plus the balance of principal amount of `4000/-. The interest will be loaded from the date when the proposal was made by the Lok Adalat and it was accepted by the Government on 25.1.2002. This order must be taken as a direction in C.M. applications filed by the claimant and on the basis that the order passed by the Lok Adalat constitutes a decree and the liability of the State commences from the date when the Lok Adalat FAO No.2361 of 1999 (O&M) -4- made its pronouncement. 4. The appeal and the C.M. applications are disposed of as above. April 27, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE