IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 656 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2004 IN EA 244/04 IN EP 77/02 IN LAR.164/1990 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------- NABEESA, W/O. ISMAIL, MANATHU THOPPIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-21. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.SMITHA RESPONDENTS: JUDGEMENT DEBTOR & GARNISHEE: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. COCHIN REFINERIES, IRUMPANAMAM, AMBALAMUKAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 656 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The decree holder in E.A. No.244 of 2004 in E.P. No.77 of 2002 in L.A.R. No.164 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner. Calculation of the amount due under the decree is in dispute. The execution court following the decision of this Court in Mathunni Mathai v. State of Kerala, 1998(1) K.L.T. 812 accepted the statement filed by the judgment debtors. According to the revision petitioner/decree holder, the amount worked out in the statement of the judgment debtors is not correct and that the amount due is more than what is stated in the statement. 2. I have noticed the fact that there are later decisions on the point regarding appropriation of amounts deposited by the judgment debtor. The latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2008(1) K.L.J.(SC) 463 covers this point. This Court also considered the same question in the decision reported in State of C.R.P. NO.656/2005 2 Kerala v. Mariyamma, 2005(2) K.L.T. 587 and issued guidelines to be followed by the Subordinate Courts regarding adjustment of the decree amount deposited by the State in execution of a decree passed in land acquisition reference. 3. In the light of the decisions cited supra, the execution court is directed to consider the matter afresh. The parties shall submit fresh statements in tune with the said decisions for the perusal of the execution court. The execution court shall pass orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.656/2005 3 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 656/2005 O R D E R 11th June, 2008