IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 1645 of 2003(I) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2003 IN EP.648/01 IN LAR.542/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, KAKKANAD, REP. BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER.* *Transposed as addl. R2 vide order dt.7.12.07 on IA 2313/07 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL SRI.MOHAN C.MENON FOR R2 RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: KURIAN, S/O. KURIAN PARAPPEL, KAKKANAD. ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. ----------------------- C.R.P.No.1645 of 2003 ----------------------- ORDER This revision is filed by the judgment debtors in L.A.R.No.542/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The Requisitioning Authority is the second petitioner, who is transposed as the additional second respondent vide I.A.No.2313/07. 2. Heard arguments of the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the additional second respondent, namely, the Requisitioning Authority, as counsel for the first respondent has not turned up to advance arguments. 3. The order assailed is an order passed by the execution court on E.P.No.648/01 in L.A.R.No. 542/88. It is a cryptic order and reads as follows: “Rs.72,124/- deposited. E.P. dismissed.” 4. It is the contention of the Government Pleader as also the counsel for the Requisitioning Authority that though so much amount was deposited CRP 1645/03 2 by the State, there was no adjudication as to the exact amount due to the decree holder; that by the dismissal of the EP consequent on deposit, the Requisitioning Authority or the State did not get an opportunity to contest the correctness of the amount claimed in the EP and that therefore, an opportunity be afforded to the the second respondent, the Requisitioning Authority and the Government to file statements before the execution court and contest the correctness of the amount due to the decree holder, although the Government have deposited Rs.72,124/- in the court below. Counsel for the first respondent/decree holder has not turned up and there is no one to enlighten me as to whether there was actual adjudication of the amount due to the decree holder under the award. In the result, without prejudice to the State or the Requisitioning Authority moving the execution court to have the exact amount due to the decree holder being adjudicated in the absence of CRP 1645/03 3 an earlier order fixing the exact amount due, I dispose of this civil revision petition. 3rd October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv