R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) HEARD . The review application moved by the State/Judgment Debtor is hereby declined.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 9th March, 1996 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh who held as follows : "Since no counter statement has been filed by the JDs disputing the amount due as mentioned in the statement of the Decree-holder dated 10.2.1996 viz. Rs. 13,27,858/- it is ordered that warrants of attachment of the properties of the JDs for realisation of this amount be issued for 20.4.1996. PF and list of properties be furnished within three days if not already submitted." Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- A decree was passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh on 20.12.1985 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs for recovery of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum compounded annually on the entire amount paid to the plaintiff/decree-holder on 3.2.1983, 29.3.1985, 25.2.1981, 23.12.1982, 10.8.1984, 13.5.1981, 12.1.1983 and 4.8.1984 and it was also ordered by the trial Court that interest so granted shall be recoverable w.e.f. 1.9.1979 to the date of their actual payment. This decree was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3.12.1986. Second appeal was also filed in the High Court by the plaintiff Shri Amar Singh and vide judgment and decree dated 23rd May, 1990, the decree of the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate court was modified and it was ordered that plaintiff Shri Amar Singh would be entitled to the compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the arrears of salary w.e.f. the date on which the amount became due till the date of their actual payment. The High Court also awarded to the plaintiff/decree-holder compound interest at the same rate i.e. 12% per annum for the period during which the payment of gratuity and pension was delayed and, thus, the decree of the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court was modified.
(3.) VIDE order dated 5th October, 1995 the learned trial Court directed the decree-holder, as well as the judgment debtor to submit their statement of accounts after calculating the amount. In pursuance of this direction, the decree-holder submitted the statement of accounts and, as per the decree- holder, an amount of Rs. 13,27,858/- was due to him. The State did not file any statement of accounts on its behalf, as a result of which, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, vide the impugned order dated 9th March, 1996 ordered to the State for the payment of Rs. 13,27,858/-. The State is not satisfied with this order. Hence the present revision.;