IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4515 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- KAMALAKARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KALLANADY HOUSE, NEDUNGADU KARA, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, (RETIRED OVERSEER FROM KSEB, MATTANCHERRY). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MATTANCHERRY. BY SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 4515 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as an Overseer from the 1st respondent - K.S.E.B on 31.12.2007. When he was a Lineman in the Electrical Major Section, Narakkal, one Sudheesh died due to electrocution on 27.8.1997. O.S.No.198/1999 came to be instituted before the Sub Court, Kochi against the Board, the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Major Section, Narakkal and the petitioner herein as defendants 1 to 3. The suit was dismissed. But the District Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.84,000/- with interest. Exhibit P1 is the judgment in that behalf. A perusal of Exhibit P1 would show that the first appellate court passed a decree in favour of plaintiff holding that defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest and proportionate costs. Thus the petitioner W.P ( C) No. 4515 of 2008 2 herein who was the 3rd defendant in the suit is also a judgment debtor under Exhibit P1. 2. Exhibit P1 was challenged in RSA 879 of 2006 before this Court. Petitioner was also a party thereto. This court analysed the evidence on record and found that the appellant had apparently instructed the deceased Sudheesh to climb the electric post. This Court further found as follows: “In such circumstances, findings of the first appellate court that death of Sudheesh was caused due to negligence of third appellant is perfectly correct. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine.” 3. As on date Exhibit P2 has become final. It seems that the Electricity Board thereafter accorded sanction for payment of the amount as directed in Exhibit P1. It further seems that the amount has been paid. This is also evident from Exhibit P3. Exhibit P3 further states that the amount W.P ( C) No. 4515 of 2008 3 will have to be realized from the 3rd defendant in the appeal namely, the petitioner herein. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P3 to the said extent. 4. I heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board. 5. The petitioner is also a judgment debtor under Exhibit P1, which is affirmed in Exhibit P2 judgment of the second appellate court. No doubt the decree casts a joint and several liability and therefore the Electricity Board paid the amount due under the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Board is also a judgment debtor and the decree casts joint and several liability, remedy of the Electricity Board after satisfying decree, if at all, is only to file a suit for contribution. May be this is correct. But in my view, inter se rights of the petitioner on one hand and the Electricity Board on the other will have to be decided only by the Civil Court. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs in relation to the direction W.P ( C) No. 4515 of 2008 4 contained in Exhibit P3, by which, the amount which has been paid by the Board to satisfy Exhibit P1, is sought to be realized from the petitioner. To enable the petitioner to issue a suit notice and move the court for appropriate reliefs, it is further directed that the Board shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P7 for a period of six months from today. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 4515 of 2008 5 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007