@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
J.V. Gupta, J.@mdashThe petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 24.2.1987, whereby the objections filed by the State of Haryana judgment debtor were dismissed.
2. The only point urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that since the amount of compensation was deposited vide a bank draft dated 28.4.1979, the landowners were entitled to the interest upto that date and not thereafter. The executing Court considering the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 and also of Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, came to the conclusion that since no notice of payment was given to the decree holder, they were entitled to claim interest even thereafter.
3. The learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor submitted that since the amount of compensation was deposited, the judgment-debtor was not liable to pay interest thereafter.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Order 21 Rule 1 provides the modes of paying the money under decree If the money payable under a decree is paid by a deposit in the Court, whose duty is to execute the decree, the interest, if any shall cease to run from the date of service of notice referred to in Sub-clause 2 of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the Code. Admittedly, no such notice either through Court or directly to the decree-holder by registered post was ever sent by the judgment-debtor.
In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
