IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2700 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [EP.NO.494/2010 IN LAR.NO.81/1994 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., P.B.NO.2, AMBALAMUGAL, (NOW BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI-REFINERY). BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SMT.THUSHARA JAMES. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERY, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-682 019. 2. SREEDHARAN NAIR, N/O.KUNJAN NAIR, VAZHAPPAKUDATH HOUSE, TRIVENI ROAD, KUZHEEKKAD P.O., AMBALAMEDU, PIN-682 303. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.2700/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/03/2011 IN E.P.NO.494/2010 IN L.A.R. NO. 81/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/07/2011 IN E.P.NO.494/2010 IN LAR.NO.81/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 02/12/2010 IN E.P.NO.494/2010 IN LAR.NO.81/94 BEFORE THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2700 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader takes notice for 1st respondent. Notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with in view of the direction I propose to issue. 2. Judgment debtor in E.P.No.494 of 2010 in L.A.R.No.81 of 1994 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur is the petitioner before me challenging Exts.P1 and P2, orders dated 21.03.2011 and 16.07.2011 attaching certain amount from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said orders are passed notwithstanding that no further amount is due to 2nd respondent, the entire amount due having already been paid and full satisfaction recorded in the execution petition. It is contended that in view of that, orders under challenge are illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. By Exts.P1 and P2, orders there is an attachment of certain amount from the petitioner. If petitioner has raised the objection that the entire amount due to the 2nd respondent has already been paid, certainly that objection has to be considered and appropriate decision entered by the executing court before the amount is disbursed to the 2nd respondent. OP(C) No.2700/2011 2 Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing the executing court to consider Ext.P3, objection preferred by the petitioners and pass orders thereon, before the amount is disbursed to the 2nd respondent pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, orders of attachment. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks