LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-427

PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Decided On December 15, 2014
PARAMJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Bachan Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.10.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Dhuri, whereby the application of the judgment-debtors for depositing a sum of Rs. 1,74,305.35, which was the outstanding dues against them has been rejected and they were directed to deposit Rs. 3,21,716/-, on or before 16.11.2011.

(2.) Dispute herein is pertaining to the recovery of the amount awarded on account of damages on account of the untimely death of Major Singh. In the suit filed for recovery, the Trial Court had directed the defendants-petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 4,60,800/- along with interest @ 1% per month from the date of death of Major Singh, i.e., 10.03.1998 and Rs. 10,000/- as expenses were also granted on 02.03.2004. The petitioner/judgment-debtors initially filed, RFA No.180 of 2004 before this Court and vide order dated 06.01.2005, this Court had given liberty to the judgment-debtors by staying the execution of the decree subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount, within 6 months, which could be disbursed to the respondent/decree-holders against security. Order dated 06.01.2005 reads as under:

(3.) Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 4,43,088.50 was deposited on 27.05.2005. The judgment and decree was modified by the Lower Appellate Court in view of the RFA, being transferred and instead a sum of Rs. 2,90,800/- along with interest @ 1% per month from the date of death was granted. The dispute then arose as to on what amount the interest is to run. The case of the petitioner is that since they had deposited the amount on 27.05.2005, they were not liable to pay the interest and could not be held liable on account of nonwithdrawal of the amount by the respondents who were only to furnish security, as per the order of this Court. The details of deposits, during the pendency of the litigation, have now been given in the affidavit dated 04.11.2014, which read as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_427_LAWS(P&H)12_2014_1.html</FRM>