Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THIS is a review application arising out of the order of this Court dated September 05, 2013. This Court applied the dicta of the Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court and held that the precedent in State of Haryana vs. M/s. S.L. Arora and Company, : AIR 2010 SC 1511 did not apply to the facts of the present case and opinion was expressed on a legal issue that interest till date of the award being in the nature of damages becomes the principal amount itself and, therefore, future interest is payable on the said amount of interest as well. The Court applied the law in Union of India vs. Roshni Devi and others, : 2005(1) Arb. LR 363 (J & K); Union of India vs. M/s. Harbans Singh Tuli and Sons Builders (P) Ltd., : AIR 2000 P & H 313; Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited vs. Three Circles, : (2009) 10 SCC 374 and Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A., : (1999) 4 SCC 327 and upheld the order of the learned Executing Court. In the present review application, the applicant seeks a change of opinion which is not permissible reason to re -open the case on merits.
(2.) THEN it remains to be examined whether the statement made by Major Sudha K.V., Garrison Engineer (presently promoted as Lt. Col.) before the executing court is binding or not. The same reads as follows: - "Statement of Major Sudha K.V., Garrison Engineer (Air Force Adampur) Punjab We have already processed the matter with the Government of India seeking approval/sanction to make payment as per order of this court in this case. We are making all out efforts to get the sanction and vigorously pursuing the matter. We hope that payment will be made within four months. Hence, four months time may be granted and the account already attached may be released. RO & AC Sd/ - Sudha KV Sd/ - (Ms. Sonali Singh) CJJD/3.2.2014/CHD" On the basis of this statement, the respondent -claimant made the following statement: - "Statement of Sh. Satpal Singh, Partner of M/s. SP Constructions, 571, Sector 16 -D, Chandigarh. I have heard the above statement and agree for the proposal as given by Judgment Debtor. I have no objection if the time is granted by the Court for making the payment as stated above to the Decree Holder. The present execution may be adjourned sine die or may be consigned to record with liberty to file/revive the same after the expiry of four months period as sought by the Judgment Debtor. I have no objection if the account already attached is released from attachment. RO & AC Sd/ - Satpal Singh Sd/ - (Ms. Sonali Singh) CJJD/3.2.2014/CHD"
(3.) ON the statement of both parties, the account attached in execution was released and the yoke lifted. On the basis of these statements, the Court passed the following order on February 03, 2014 of which the relevant extract is as follows: - Since, the JD has admitted that liberty and has agreed to make the payment within four months, therefore, the present execution is allowed to be consigned to the record room with the liberty to the DH to revive the same as and when the need arise i.e. if payment of the decreetal amount is not made by the JD. The JD will be bound by the statement so recorded today in the Court and the JD will not be at the liberty to withdraw from the statement so made in the Court. In view of the statement of present execution is ordered to be consigned to the record room assuming that the JD will make the payment within four months. The DH will be at liberty to revive the same as and when needs arise.;