No. 4/21.12.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mrs. Mousumi Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. S. K. Das, the Ld. Advocate are present.

This revisional application has been preferred by the JDR against the order dated 05.04.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 17/S/2009.  It is not in dispute that the claim case was disposed of by a judgement and order dated 17.11.2009 with a specific direction upon the JDR to pay the awarded sum within one month from the date of passing of the said judgement i.e. 17.11.2009, failing which the awarded sum would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint case i.e. 07.11.2007 till realization.  It is evident from the materials on record that pursuant to the aforesaid award the JDR drew a cheque dated 17.12.2009 and deposited the same with the Executing Court on 23.12.2009 for the principal awarded amount of Rs.5,16,000/-.  The said cheque was ultimately handed over to the Decree Holder on 30.12.2009, who received the same with protest.  Thus, it is crystal clear that the principal awarded sum alone was paid to the Decree Holder after expiry of one month from the date of the judgement of the complaint case.  Accordingly the Decree Holder is entitled to the interest on the aforesaid principal awarded sum for the period from the date of filing of the complaint case i.e. 07.11.2007 till 23.12.2009.  The Executing Court has accordingly calculated the interest portion on the aforesaid principal awarded sum of Rs.5,16,000/- for the aforesaid period as Rs.95,671/- only and further directed payment of the same by the JDR to the Decree Holder.  Since the Executing Court cannot seat over the judgement passed by the Forum and upon consideration of the materials on record we also do not find any material illegality and/or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Executing Court for making an order for payment of interest on the principal awarded sum for the period as aforesaid in terms of the award.  There is, therefore, no scope for interference with the same by this State Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  The revisional application accordingly fails and the same is therefore, dismissed.