PUNJAB STATE Vs. ISHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal arises out of the execution proceedings and is filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in execution application No. 132/19 of 1965-73, passed on 3-4-1976.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the Punjab State acquired the decree--holders' land for the establishment of Agricultural University at Ludhiana. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 8-2-1960. The Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 31-7-1964, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of Rs. 57799. 38 Paise was also paid to the decree--holders in the month of December, 1966.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the judgment--debtor--appellant, argues that the decretal amount paid in Court tant--amounts to payment to the decree--holders and as such the interest must cease from its deposit in the Court. This is just a bald submission of the counsel and it is not supported by any principle or precedent. Ishar Singh, decree--holder, appearing as R. W. 3 has deposed that he did not receive any notice regarding the deposit of the compensation amount in the Court and this contention of the decree--holder remains unrebutted. It seems that notice was not give through the Court to the decree--holders. At any rate the decree--holder--appellant, was unaware of the payment made into Court until December, 1966. Although, payment made under a decree in the Court, may operate as a satisfaction of the decree, it will, I think, be unreasonable to hold that merely because the payment is made in Court, therefore, interest should cease to run upon a decree which awards interest until its payment. We think O. 21 R. 1 (1) (a) and O. 21 R. 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be read together and when so read, it is in our opinion clear that decree--holders would be entitled to claim interest until such time as and when they come to know of the payment made in the Court. This construction is in consonance with the considerations of equity. The deposit of decretal amount in the Court quietly by the judgment--debtor and then leaving it to the decree--holder to discover it for himself, would more or less amount to a game of hide--and--seek, and, of course, the Court of law is not a playground for litigants. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Special Land Acquisition officer, Ahmedabad v. Ambalal Trikamlal, AIR 1951 Bom 394 and Janaki Amma v. Mathiri, AIR 1952 Trav Co 236 in which it is held that interest will not cease to run on the amount deposited in Court until decree--holder gets notice of the deposit.