SANKARANEZHUTHASSAN Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order dated 7th August, 2004 in EP No. 345 of 1997 in LAR No. 45 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur.

(2.) By the order impugned, the Court below accepted the statement filed by the judgment debtor. The statement filed by the decree holder was not accepted on the ground that interest on solatium is also included in that statement, when the decree does not provide for interest on solatium.

(3.) It is true that the decree does not specifically provide for payment of interest on solatium. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sundar v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516 : 2001 KHC 750 : 2001 (3) KLT 489 : 2001 (2) KLJ 449 : ILR 2001 (3) Ker. 443 : 2001 (7) SCC 211, interest is payable on solatium as well.