IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 315 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2009 IN E.P.77/2008 IN LAR.100/1991 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------- THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,STANDING COUNSEL,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G. THUNDATHIL. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER NO.2 AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1,3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.C.J.JOSE,. S/O.JOHN CHETTUPUZHAKARAN, POLICE STATION ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM,. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LA) THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003 ADV. SRI.V.R.K.KAIMAL& N.M.MADHU FOR CAVEATOR -RESPONDENT NO.1. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 AND R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.315 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. ORDER Judgment debtor in E.P.No.77 of 2008 in L.A.R.No.100 of 1991 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is the petitioner before me challenging the order dated 18.12.2009 holding that a sum of Rs.9,94,241.53 is due to respondent No.1/decree holder No.2. There was a decree on the reference case on 30.03.1995 but without impleading the petitioner, the requisitioning department. That decree was challenged in O.P.No.14016 of 1996, it was allowed and consequently petitioner was impleaded. The order was challenged by respondent No.1 in the Supreme Court and as per order of the Supreme Court petitioner deposited Rs.3,36,464.37 in the reference court on 03.04.1998. After impleadment of petitioner as additional respondent No.2, the case was disposed of by the reference court on 30.10.1999. Based on that decree respondent No.1 initiated execution proceeding. Dispute arose as to what exactly is the balance amount due to respondent No.1. Petitioner contended that the sum of Rs.3,36,464.37 deposited on 03.04.1998 has to be adjusted towards principal amount as clause (vi) of the decree stated and if so, no further amount as claimed by respondent No.1 is due. That claim was resisted by respondent No.1 on the ground that while the sum of Rs.3,36,464.37 was deposited on 03.04.1998 or thereafter there was no direction from petitioner as to the manner of adjustment of the said amount and hence respondent No.1 CRP No.315/2010 2 was entitled to adjust the said amount towards interest and cost first and the balance if any towards principal amount. So adjusted, balance amount due to respondent No.1 is Rs.9,94,241.53. That contention was upheld by the executing court and accordingly the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the deposit was made on 03.04.1998 even before the decree was passed with petitioner also on record and, as clause (vi) of the decree suggested, amount deposited on 03.04.1998 was to be adjusted towards principal amount. Learned counsel disputed correctness of the statement filed by respondent No.1 in the executing court. 2. Clause (vi) of the decree directs that “the amount received by the claimant will be adjusted towards the decree amount and he is allowed to realize the balance amount if any from the respondents”. This according to the learned counsel for petitioner meant that the amount deposited on 03.04.1998 has to be adjusted towards the principal amount due. I am afraid, no such interpretation can be given to clause (vi) of the decree, for, it only says that the amount deposited is to be adjusted towards the “decree amount” meaning thereby the amount due under the decree which includes the interest and cost. 3. There is a galaxy of decisions on the point (see Meghraj v. Bayabai (AIR 1970 SC 161), Georgekutty v. Thomas (1980 KLT 641), Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. V. Mathunni Mathai & others (1993 (2) KLT 984) and M/s.Sujatha Weaving Mills v. CRP No.315/2010 3 Syndicate Bank (1994(1) KLJ 409) which supported the view that when a judgment debtor does not specify the manner of appropriation of the amount paid/deposited it is open to the decree holder to adjust the payment/deposit first towards interest. The position does not change even when deposit is made as per a direction of the Court [see Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (1995 (1) KLT 784)]. There is no case or evidence that at the time of deposit on 03.04.1998 or thereafter manner of appropriation of the amount was stated by petitioner. As such, there is nothing wrong in respondent No.1 appropriating the amount first towards interest and cost. That part of the order of executing court has to be sustained. 4. Though learned counsel for petitioner has raised a contention that interest calculated is not correct it is not shown in what way the calculation is wrong. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. I.A.No.1477 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks