MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated March 16, 1989, whereby the claim of the decree-holder in respect of the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from November 30, 1986 to March 25, 1988, was disallowed.

(2.) The claimant decree-holder filed the execution application in the land acquisition proceedings seeking interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. one lac deposited by the judgment-debtor on November 30, 1986. The said amount was withdrawn by the decree-holder on March 25, 1988. Thus, he claimed interest for this period i.e., from the date of deposit till it was withdrawn by him. This request was resisted on behalf of the judgment-debtors on the ground that their liability ended the moment the amount of Rs. one lac was deposited and that they were not liable to pay any interest. The learned District Judge found that the decree-holder was not entitled to the interest for the said period. According to the petitioner since no notice of the said payment by the decree-holder was given to the judgment-debtors, the interest will not cease to run from the date of deposit. According to the petitioner, payment can be made in the Court, but it was the duty of the judgment-debtors to give notice of the said payment to the decree-holder either through Court or through registered post acknowledgement, which, according to the decree-holder was not done.

(3.) It is the admitted case of the parties that Rs. one lack were deposited on November 30, 1986 and were withdrawn by the decree-holder on March 25, 1988. It was the amount of compensation for the land acquired. Fifteen per cent per annum interest was allowed as per the statutory requirements. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show whether any notice was given or not and why the decree-holder could not withdraw the amount earlier. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.