IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1698 of 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2003 IN EP. NO.646/2001 IN LAR.540/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTORS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, KAKKANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. (TRANSPOSED AS R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 6/12/2007 IN IA.NO.2301/07) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER -------------------------- 1. KURIAN S/O. KURIAN OTHARA, PARAPPEL, KAKKANAD. 2. COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, KAKKANAD, RE[RESEMTED BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. THE SECOND PETITIONER IN THE CRP IS TRANSPOSED AS 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 6/12/2007 IN I.A.NO.2301/07. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1698 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th January, 2008 O R D E R The judgment debtors challenge the order dated 14.2.2003 in E.P.No.646 of 2001 in L.A.R.No.540 of 1988. The order reads as follows: “Rs.1,14,018/- deposited. Hence E.A closed and E.P dismissed as not pressed.” 2. The contention of the petitioners is that a sum of Rs.1,14,018/- was deposited to prevent attachment of the Collectorate. Petitioners also contend that, according to their calculation statement, they are liable to pay only a sum of Rs.16,709.18. Normally, the judgment debtors would not be prejudiced by the dismissal of the Execution Petition. But in this case, the petitioners contend that the amount deposited by them was allowed to be withdrawn by the decree holder and thereafter, the decree holder was permitted to get the Execution Petition dismissed as not pressed. The petitioners submit that this has caused great prejudice to them as they lost the money and at the same time, their contentions are not adverted to and the dispute involved in the Execution Petition is not adjudicated upon. There is force in the contention raised by the petitioners. C.R.P.NO.1698 OF 2003 :: 2 :: 3. The order impugned is set aside. The executing court shall consider the objections raised by the petitioners and pass a fresh order on the merits. If it is found that excess amount was deposited by the petitioners, the executing court shall issue appropriate consequential orders and proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the court below is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 1698 OF 2003 O R D E R 7th January, 2008 -------------------------------------------