Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) IN this civil revision petition preferred under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad is sought to be set aside with further direction to adjust the amount of compensation paid by the State of Haryana, first towards interest, then towards costs and thereafter towards the principal. It is claimed that payment of compensation has been made to the petitioner at various stages but he has not been paid the entire amount of compensation of his entitlement. It is further averred that when the respondent -State of Haryana has deposited the amount of compensation from time to time, the petitioner is at liberty to appropriate the same as per his choice. Revision petition is sought to be accepted. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper -book and the attending facts and circumstances.
(2.) CLAIMING that the decree -holder is at liberty to choose the manner in which the decretal amount is to be appropriated, it has been urged by the petitioner -decree holder that amount of compensation is first to be adjusted towards interest, then towards costs and only in the last towards the principal. This plea of the petitioner was to hold good only if no particular mode of appropriation of the amount of compensation paid by the JDs had been disclosed. Reliance has been placed on Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, : 2006 (2) P.L.J. 593 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, sum and substance whereof relevant to the present controversy is clear that when a debtor makes a payment, he has a right to have it appropriated in such manner as he decides and if the creditor accepts the payment, he is bound to make the appropriation in accordance with directions of the debtor. In fact verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the petitioner in fact goes against him. It is thus evident that not the decree -holder but the JDs who are to make payment are within their rights to decide the manner of appropriation of payment made by them in discharge of execution and satisfaction of the decree. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to Prem Nath Kapoor v. N.F.C.I.,, (1995) Suppl. 5 S.C.R. 790, wherein in para 46, it is observed as under: - - "46. This Court ultimately held that the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication, by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the decree -holder is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23(1 -A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest..........."
(3.) SO far as rights of the decree -holder in appropriation of the amount of compensation in terms of general principles on this count are concerned, para 43 of Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) is noteworthy and is reproduced as under: - - "43. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree -holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on the aspect of appropriation." (emphasis added);