JUDGMENT
A.P. Ravani, J.
1. All these revision applications arise out of order passed in different execution applications by Joint District Judge, Vadodara. In different motor accident claim petitions, it was directed that the amount of compensation as per the award be paid within four months from the date of the award with 6% interest failing which the claimants were entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12%. The period of four months expired on July 31, 1984 inasmuch as the award was dated March 31, 1984. The amount of compensation as directed was tendered by the Union of India, the petitioner herein, by cheque. The cheque of the full amount of compensation was tendered on July 31, 1984. However, the amount was realised on August 27, 1984. In view of this position, the claimants demanded interest for 27 days and filed execution applications. The Trial Court held that the direction given in the award was not complied with inasmuch as cheque was tendered on July 31, 1984. However, as the cheque was realised on August 27, 1984, i.e., after the expiry of the stipulated period of four months the Trial Count directed that interest at the rate of 12% be paid by the petitioner to the original claimants. It is against this common order passed in execution applications that these revision applications have been filed.
2. Tender of cheque on the last day of the stipulated period should have been considered as good tender within time. Simply because the cheque was realised late, it cannot be said that there was no compliance with the direction given in the award. The Executing Court has committed error in holding that there was non-compliance of the direction given in the award and the amount was deposited late by 27 days. In this connection law is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. Ogale Glass Works Limited, Ogale Wadi, . Therein it is laid down that payment by cheque realised subsequently on the cheque being honoured and encashed relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque and in law the date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque.
3. It is further observed that payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present day life whether commercial or private and unless it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in cash there is no reason why payment by cheque should not be taken to be due payment if the cheque is subsequently encashed in the ordinary course. This principle is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Saraswathy v. P.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, . In view of this settled legal position, the view taken by the Executing Court cannot be sustained.
4. In the result, all the revision applications are allowed. The order passed by the trial Court directing to issue of recovery certificate for the amount claimed by the original claimants is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly in each revision application.