IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1116 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2006 IN EP.120/2005 IN OS.16/1992 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------- SUSEELA DEVI, W/O.C.P.THANKAPPAN, ANIYARA HOUSE, CHAMPAKARA KARA,KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: LRS.OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ADDL.DEFENDANTS 2 TO 6: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI KRISHNAKUMAR, W/O. LATE KRISHNAKUMAR, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHAMPAKARA KARA. 2. ANJALI DEVI A.K., W/O.THANKACHAN N.M., THADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM. 3. JAISON A.K., S/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, SAROJA BHAVAN, CHAMPAKARA, KARUKACHAL. 4. JAYADEVANAND, S/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, SAROJA BHAVAN, KAKKILPADY, CHAMPAKARA,KARUKACHAL. 5. SADANANDAN A.K., S/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, SAROJA BHAVAN, KARUKACHAL. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB GEORGE (PATHAZHAKKUZHIKAL) SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.V.J.JOHN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1116 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 22ndday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, in EP 120/05 in OS 16/92. The said EP is one for enforcing the specific performance of contract decree by depositing the amount due under the decree. 2. A perusal of the order would reveal that the court passed the decree on 28.2.95 with a direction to deposit the amount within a period of two months. It is the case of the revision petitioner herein that the amount was deposited on 27.4.95 whereby there has been substantial compliance of the order of the court. Therefore the court was to proceed further in the matter for execution of the document in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is not true and the amount has been deposited only on 27.5.95 and further that there is a procedural mistake committed which will show that the factum of deposit, as contended by the petitioner, is incorrect. If the amount is deposited on or before C.R.P. No. 1116/07 2 27.4.95, there is a substantial compliance of the order of the court. The court below points out that the amount has been credited in the civil court deposit with a date 27.5.95. Therefore the learned counsel would contend that it is beyond the period stipulated in the decree and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 4. I feel the court should have been more careful and should have analysed the matter in a better way because the rights of the parties with respect to an immovable property is in question. The court should have perused and verified all the necessary connected documents first and found out when exactly the deposit has been made before the Bank. The procedural delay of entering into the civil court deposit may not affect the party for the reason that he cannot force anybody to make entry in the civil court deposit, which is in the province of the court. Party should not be found fault with if there is a procedural delay. The prime question is whether the amount is deposited on or before 27.4.95. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had shown me a photo copy of the chalan receipt, which contains the date and seal of the bank on 27.4.95 as the amount received. It is also seen that the chalan is issued to the party on 4.4.95. The court may C.R.P. No. 1116/07 3 consider the legality or correctness of the matter after directing both parties to supply materials and produce evidence in that regard. If there is any other legal remedy available for the parties, that also must be considered by the court. The court shall not be too technical to deal with these types of matters. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 27.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 1116/07 4