IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 354 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/11/2007 IN EP.97/1997 IN LAR.6/1986 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER (NOT A PARTY BEFORE THE COURT BELOW): ------------------ M.V.ASHRAF, S/O K.P. MARIYUMMA, MAYINVEETIL HOUSE P.O. MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW): ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P 355/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 354 & 355 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER C.R.P. No. 354/08 is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, in EP 97/97 in LAR 6/86 and C.R.P. No. 355/08 is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, in EP 95/97 in LAR 4/86. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the court below, after perusing the calculation statement, have arrived at a decision that in EP 97/97 the claimant has received an amount of Rs. 65,019/- in excess of the decree amount and in EP 95/97 the claimant has received an amount of Rs. 55,481/- in excess of the decree amount and therefore recorded full satisfaction in both cases and closed the matter. Now the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the court has lost sight of the Apex court decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 457]. At page 485 in para 53 of the said decision the Apex court held as follows: “Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation being at C.R.P. NOS.354 & 355/08 2 different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment-debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of appropriation.” 3. So this dictum has to be followed and the court has to reconsider the matter and find out whether there is specification and if there is specification, whether there is any incorrectness. Thereafter, following the dictum laid down, arrive at a decision regarding the correctness of the amount. 4. In order to facilitate the court below to do the same, I set aside the orders passed by the court below, which is challenged before this court, and remit the cases back to the same court for fresh consideration in the light of the discussions made above. The court shall hear both sides, apply the judicial principles placed before it and then decide the matter in accordance with law. The civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NOS.354 & 355/08 3