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. 824 of 2003(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2002 IN EA.283/99 IN EP.23/98 IN LAR.5/1981 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------- KORAMBAYIL AHAMED HAJI, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, HILL TOP, MANJERI.(DIED) ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED. ADDL. R2. SAINABA, W/O. KORAMBAYIL AHAMED HAJI, HILL TOP, MANJERI. ADDL. R3. DR. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. KORAMBAYIL AHAMED HAJI, HILL TOP, MANJERI (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DESEASED SOLE RESPONDENTAS PER ORDER DATED 2.9.2003 IN I.A. NO. 767 OF 2003). BY ADVS.FOR R2 & R3 SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R2 & R3 SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH FOR R2 & R3 SMT.MEENA.A. FOR R2 & R3 SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR FOR R2 & R3 SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R2 & R3 SRI.RAHUL VARMA FOR R2 & R3 SRI.V.S.ROBIN FOR R2 & R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 835 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2107 OF 2003 IN C.R.P. NO.824 OF 2003. DISMISSED 11.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NOS. 824 & 835 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the State of Kerala against the order in E.P. No.23 of 1998 in L.A.R. No.5 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The decree holder died and the legal heirs are impleaded. The decree holder filed E.P. No.23 of 1998 claiming a further amount of Rs.1,55,406/- as the balance amount due under the decree as on 10.4.2002. While the execution petition was pending, the State filed an application under Section 144 C.P.C. praying for a direction to the decree holder to return an amount of Rs.60,662/- with future interest. According to the revision petitioner, the said application was filed since the State had paid excess amount to the decree holder. The revision petitioner also produced the statement showing the amounts paid to the decree holder. The statement shows that an amount of Rs.68,661.87 was deposited in excess of the amount due to the decree holder. According to the revision petitioner, the amount paid was not appropriated or adjusted by the decree holder in accordance with law. C.R.P.NOS.824 & 835/2003 2 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the calculation statement of the decree holder is not correct. According to him, the decree holder submitted the calculation statement by totalling the entire amount including interest and further deducted the deposit from time to time. He further submitted that the deposits made by the State was deducted initially from the amount awarded by way of interest thereby always getting the principal amount as due. 3. It appears that the court below did not go into the details of the statement submitted by the judgment debtor. The application filed by the State was dismissed by the court below on 23.7.2002 stating that the claimant is entitled to more amount as claimed by him. On the very same day, the court below accepted the statement of the decree holder and directed the judgment debtor to make the payment and posted the case for payment to 14.8.2002. 4. Going by the contentions raised by the parties, I am of the view that the appropriation of the amount deposited by the State of Kerala towards satisfaction of the decree requires reconsideration. The court below, as I stated earlier, without going into the respective contentions of C.R.P.NOS.824 & 835/2003 3 the parties passed a cryptic order. The court below is directed to calculate the decree amount following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India,2008(1)K.L.T.(SC) 463 and the decision of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Mariyamma, 2005(2) K.L.T. 587 wherein this Court had 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 may also be referred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct both sides to file their respective statements based on the decisions quoted above within a period of one month from today. The court below shall consider the calculation statements and pass orders afresh within three months from the date of receipt of the calculation statements. The orders under challenge are set aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NOS.824 & 835/2003 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NOS.824 &835/2003 O R D E R 11th June, 2008