IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25702 OF 2008(I) -------------------------- OS.93/1999 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: -------------- RADHA PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. PURUTHOTHAMAN, VRINDAVAN, THRIKKANNARPURAM, POOVATHOOR P.O., KOIPURAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. M/S.ST.GEORGE INVESTMENTS & KURIES EDATHUA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER CHERIAN GEORGE, KAVILE VEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA. 2. CHERIAN GEROGE,KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA,KUTTANADU. 3. ANU SAJI, W/O.SAJI,KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA, KUTTANADU. 4. SUNU GEORGE, KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA,KUTTANADU. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25702 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondents the decree holders in E.P.67 of 2002 in O.S.93 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruvalla. As per Ext.P6 order, executing Court fixed the balance amount due from the petitioner as Rs.3,44,093/-. It was challenged before this Court in WP(C). 23185 of 2006. This Court, under Ext.P7 judgment, directed the executing Court to pass fresh order after fixing the correct amount due on condition of depositing or paying Rs.50,000/- to the decree holder before a particular date. Petitioner did not comply with that order. He filed R.P.145 of 2008 thereafter. Under Ext.P8 order this Court allowed petitioner to pay Rs.75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as directed earlier, within fifteen days from the date of Ext.P8 judgment and directed the executing Court, if the amount is paid, to fix the correct amount due. Case of the petitioner is that in compliance with Ext.P8 judgment he had paid the amount and executing Court WP(C)25702/08 2 thereafter posted the case for hearing and finally without fixing the actual amount due, as per order dated 22.7.2008, posted the case for taking steps for settlement of proclamation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that inspite of Ext.P7 and P8 directions executing Court did not fix the correct balance amount due and therefore the executing Court is to be directed to fix the amount. Ext.P9 the relevant page of the B diary does not show that subsequent to Ext.P8 order of this Court, the balance amount was fixed by the executing Court. When under Ext.P7 and P8 judgments this Court directed the executing Court to hear the parties and fix the balance amount due, executing Court is bound to fix the amount. Hence Sub Court, Thiruvalla is directed to fix the balance amount due after hearing the parties and then settle the proclamation and direct sale. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-