' This appeal under Section 104 r/w Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1898 is directed against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned District Judge/Executing Court, Charsadda vide which application u/S. 151, CPC for correction or order dated 26.05.2015 was dismissed and execution petition was consigned to Record Room being it satisfied.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the execution petition was filed by the appellant along with decree holders for realization of compensation amount alongwith 6% interest till the final payment of entire compensation amount determined by same Court as Referee Judge dated 30.05.2005. The said decree was finally satisfied except appellant who filed application for seeking direction to respondents (Acquiring Authority i,e, NHA) for payment of interest on the principle amount on 31.01.2014 as under: "it is therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of this petition the respondents/judgment debtor may graciously be directed to pay the profit/interest as per judgment and decree dated 30.05.2005, on the principal amount of Rs, 806442/- since 17.01.2001 till date."
3. Present respondents submitted their replication by raising plea that respondents were not on fault and payment of enhanced amount was not received by appellant due to wrong mentioning of his name in the referred execution petition. Arguments on the said application were heard on 09.05.2015 by the Executing Court and case was posted for order on 26.05.2015 and following order was passed: "the record on file abundantly clarify the fact that out of the 30 decree holders 29 decree holders were paid the decretal amount along with the interest, it was the petitioner who did not come forward in time for payment in order to receive the decretal amount along with the interest so claimed. Whether in that eventuality the NGA could be burdened with the payment of the interest for the extended period during which the decree holders did not agitate the matter for applying to receive the deposited amount along with the interest? The plain answer would be that had the NHA being in default of none deposit of the compensatory together with the interest accrued thereon in that situation the NHA could have been held responsible for the payment of interest for the extended period of time for the default but the NHA in this regard in compliance with the Court order deposited the decretal amount with interest falling in the respective share of the decree holders rather the decree holder could be held responsible for not approaching the Court for receiving payment of his emoluments arising out of the decree so granted in his favour together with interest, the delay obviously has been caused not by the judgment debtor but by his own act of omission and rectification and the decree holder therefore the person responsible is at fault in the circumstances. Had the decree holder committed more delay in the receipt of the decretal amount whether in that eventuality too judgment debtor could be held responsible? Certainly not although in the judgment it has been written that the interest has been allowed till final payment of the decretal amount but this order could not be interpreted in such a manner to protect or to cover the default of the decree holder himself rather than the judgment debtor.
' In the circumstances the judgment debtor could not be held responsible for the payment of interest for the extended period of time, the NHA is responsible for payment of interest up to the year 2009 and not more than that the plea agitated by the NHA/judgment debtor is worth consideration and is accepted."
4. After passing of aforesaid order learned counsel for NHA apprised the Court about the payment position by submitting that as entire decretal amount of Rs, 8,00,000/- along with accrued interest up to 2009 has been paid and nothing is outstanding so requested for consigning of execution petition to Record Room being decree has been satisfied. Upon this decree holder was directed by learned Court vide order dated 16.05.2015 to produce his counsel on the next date for rendition of payment but on next date i,e, 05.12.2015 the leaned counsel for decree holder submitted another application for correction of aforementioned order dated 26.05.2015 and dismissed the fresh application, the relevant para of which is reproduced below: "It is on record that arguments on the point as to the receipt of 6% interest/profit on the decretal amount was heard on 09.05.2015, which was adjourned to 26.05.2015 for order. It was on 26.05.2015, this Court made an order with respect to the matter in issue involved and by holding that with the solitary exception of decree holders, the remaining petitioners/decree holders 29 in number have already received the decretal amount along with interest and it was the petitioner, who did not come forward for receipt of decretal amount in Court, which were admittedly deposited with Civil Nazir of the Court in consequence of submission of a cheque to the effect. Since, the petitioners/decree holders were held to be responsible for the delay, as he did not attend the Court for drawing the deposited decretal amount along with accrued interest up to the year 2009; therefore, he was held at fault rather than NHA. The order was made in open Court pronounced expressly in the presence of parties from which all concerned could not disclaim to be unaware; therefore, the application moved at the moment could not be entertained, which stands dismissed.
The decree holders have already received the decretal amount along with accrued interest up to the year 2009. The execution petition is satisfied in toto."
6. Arguments in motion heard and record appended with the appeal perused.
7. From the perusal of order it divulges that the payment of compensation was delayed only to the appellant due to his fault by mentioning wrong name in the reference petition as Dil Jan and somewhere Abdul Qayum and this matter was resolved by the appellant much after when rest of decree holders had received their respective shares of finally determined compensation along with interest so judgment debtors were not found at fault correctly by learned executing Court and it was only decree holder due to whose fault he could not receive his share in time during execution proceedings. Thus, the findings of the learned Executing Court are based on sound reasons and the execution petition was rightly consigned to the record room after proper examining and rendition of payment record so this appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed in limine.