Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) The petitioner has come up in this revision against the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the execution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the observation that the decree stands satisfied.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not received the interest after the passing of the decree. However, it is admitted that the interest up to the date of payments made from time to time has been calculated and paid. Copy of the judgment has been placed on record. The trial Court granted following relief : "In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Since the retrial benefits have already been released to the plaintiff and defendants are directed to make the payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears of delayed payments of rctiral benefits to the plaintiff lrom the date it became due till the date of payment. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room."
(3.) In terms of the judgment and decree, interest at the rate of 18% per annum is payable on the delayed payments of the retiral benefits from the date it became due till the date of payment. Learned counsel has placed on record copy of the statement of payment of retrial benefit which indicates that gratuity was paid to the petitioner in four instalments i.e. 28.3.1998, 16.7.1998. 3.09.1998 and 9.1.1999. Similarly, leave encashment was also paid on 24.12.1997, revised encashment on 6.5.1998, pension on 20.3.1998, G.P.F. On 6.5.1998 and G.I.S. on 6.5.1998. It is not in dispute that interest has been calculated till the payment of above amounts to the petitioner in terms of the decree. The interest is payable only till the payment is made and no interest becomes payable, after the payment is made. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. . ( Previous Hitlist Next ) ;