Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K.K. Paul, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

2. The short question which has been raised before us by way of filing this revision pertains to the interpretation of this Commission’s judgment dated 25.07.2008 in so far as the rate of interest is concerned. The original judgment of 25.07.2008 appears to indicate that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter to be referred to “the Parishad”) shall pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with 09% interest. This mandate has a default clause also which postulates that if the Parishad would fail to make the payment good within two months, it shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- at the enhanced rate of 18% p.a.

3. It appears that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- had been deposited by the Parishad with the District Consumer Forum during the pendency of this Appeal in compliance to this Commission’s interim order dated 28.10.2005. The better course would have been to authorize the respondent to withdraw the said sum along with interest but this Commission vide its another bench instead of directing in this manner asked the Parishad to pay the aforesaid sum along with 09% interest within two months and in case of default at the enhanced rate of 18% p.a. Simultaneously, the Parishad was held to be authorized to withdraw its money along with interest which might have accrued upon it. We cannot go behind the judgment to ascertain as to what might have been the factor to make such arrangement and it was on the basis of the same reasoning that we declined to interfere with the aforesaid judgment when a clarification was sought for by the Parishad by moving an application which was registered as Misc. case no. 44/2009. Our order dated 06.08.2009 is on record and the concluding para of it can be quoted as below:-

“The crux is that we are not required either to modify the verdict or issue any specific clarification except observations made above. The application is disposed of accordingly.”

4. We simply observed that the Parishad would pay Rs. 3,00,000/- along with 09% interest directly to the complainant under the impression that the Parishad had still time at its disposal to remit the payment but we had neither contemplated nor we would have been competent enough to do so in an application which virtually was a review petition to either order for reduction of the rate of interest or modify the default clause. We had clarified that the consequence of failure by now i.e. upto the date of our order, will be subject to the finding in the execution petition. Also we made it clear that subject to compliance of remittance as indicated above the Parishad shall be at liberty to withdraw its money from the District Consumer Forum along with interest if accrued any.

5. We disposed of the review/recall application with the above observation and we can clarify out of the said order dated 06.08.2009 that we had not at all interfered with the judgment dated 25.07.2008 passed in appeal no. 1490/2005.

6. Obviously the Forum below is under a statutory obligation to interpret the judgment in appeal as it is readable on the face of it. In other words we can observe that neither anything can be added to it nor subtracted there from. While doing so the order dated 06.08.2009 shall not be taken at all into consideration.

7 Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 is contrary to the judgment in appeal. The Parishad’s order that interest @ 09% p.a. despite default, taking shelter of our order dated 06.08.2009 is totally in conflict with the judgment in appeal, the wordings of which alone shall prevail. Though we are not required to record any finding but if there is a default clause in the judgment in appeal the Forum below shall attach a due importance to it.

8. With these observations, we set aside the order dated 09.11.2009 which on the face