IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 325 of 2007 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2007 IN EP.416/04 IN LAR.33/1994 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS / RESPONDENT / JUDGEMENT DEBTOR : - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPL. DY.COLLECTOR (LA), K.S.E.BOARD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT / DECREE HOLDER / PETITIONER : - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- KUNJAMMA,D/O.CHACKO, CHERUKARA HOUSE, POST CHEMBUKKAVU, KODENCHERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DMR/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.325 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of December, 2011 ORDER Though notice was taken to the respondent many a times, it is returned with the endorsement that addressee is not known. In view of the order I propose to pass, notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 2. For acquisition of land belonging to the respondent, she was awarded enhanced compensation in L.A.R.No.33 of 1994 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode. According to the petitioners entire amount due to the respondent was deposited in the executing court. Later, respondent filed E.P.No.416 of 2004. Grievance of petitioners is that in spite of their contending that no further amount is due the executing court has passed order dated 07.02.2007 attaching property of petitioners. The said order is under challenge. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that without fixing liability if any of petitioners, learned Sub Judge ought not to have issued order of attachment. Learned counsel submitted that the entire amount due has already been deposited. 4. Since in the impugned order learned Sub Judge has directed parties to file calculation statement, it is clear that C.R.P.No.325 of 2007 -: 2 :- learned Sub Judge has not decided on the liability if any, of petitioners. In such a situation, it was not appropriate that an order of attachment was issued. But, since respondent is not before me I do not propose to set aside the order of attachment. The right of petitioners can be protected by other appropriate directions. Resultantly this civil revision is disposed of as under: (i) Learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode is directed to decide whether any further amount is due to the respondent in L.A.R.No.33 of 1994. (ii) It is directed that if property against which order of attachment is issued is immovable property and attachment is effected, the said property shall not be brought for sale before liability if any of petitioners is fixed. If order of attachment is not effected, the order shall remain in abeyance till liability if any, is fixed. (iii) In case property in respect of which order of attachment is issued is movable property and attachment is not effected, the order of attachment will remain in abeyance until liability as aforesaid is fixed. In case the attachment is already effected, the movables so attached shall be given to the custody of an officer of first petitioner on executing kaichit for its production as and when required by the executing court. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-