IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 272 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2008 IN E.P.21/2001 IN LAR.66/1997 of SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/2ND CLAIMANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- MANDAKINI, ANCHERIPADINJARE KARAYIL, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MANGALANANDAN SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: ADV. SRI P N JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.272 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of June, 2010 ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. Challenge is to the order dated 18-10-2008 in E.P.No.21 of 2001 in L.A.R.No.66 of 1997 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha. Dispute is whether any further amount is due to the petitioner from the respondent. Both sides filed statements in support of their respective contentions. Executing court observed that it perused and compared the statements and is satisfied that statement filed by learned Government Pleader is true and correct. According to the learned counsel for petitioner the matter was not properly considered and relevant aspects in the statement of the petitioner are not considered. 3. On going through the order under challenge it is seen that apart from observing that the statements are perused and compared and that court is satisfied that statement filed by Government Pleader is true and correct no further details are available in the order. As such the order cannot be sustained. It is liable to set aside. : 2 : Resultantly the revision is allowed and order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing court for fresh consideration and decision after hearing both sides. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-