U’ THE tuqp COURT OF KarYaTEfl AT nVTCPE Dated this the 16th Day of pri1 199 B SF0 R S TH }Vtf3fl ME, JUST1Ci H.P. N*R&Y*N C.R,F. Ho, 3 9g4/ 1 097 Between: Sri K, Raja Rao, Sb Krishnp Rao, mor, r/o Gshbiga viliace, Nasar Hobli, Fosansesra Taluk, Shirnocra District, .,,Petitioner (By Sri fl.Venkat&cha]a, advocate) And: 1) Soecial Land kcqulsition Officer, Chakra, Savehakklu & Varahi Project, Shimoga, ,,,Resoondent This C.R,P, is filed under Section 115 of CPC, acratnst the order dt, 16,7,96 in E’o,7O/94 on the f{le of the Civil Julse, Sagar, or(erjn that IS, to&ntifyino the sicratjre, This C,P,P. co ins on for Idmissio this cal, the Coirt made the o1lonr:- 0 EDER This matter coiing on for adrnlssfrn today, Is taken np for firal lispsn’ by the cnrnt of nnrtj Heard and di Dosed of by this rder, I 2. The Executing Court while executing the case ordered that the judgnent debtor has deposited the amount in eess of the claim made by the decree holder according to the court’s calculation. There fore, it directed the esess amount to be returned to the Land Acquisition Officer. The nievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order had been passed without hearing him as the calculation mao filed by him is correct and is entitled for the entire amount in deposit. The sutmission of the learned counsel in this respect is justifiable and it is justifiable for the Trial Court to cgll the petitioner befOre passing the order. 3. Revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set—aside. The Trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order after hearing the decree holder. Sc!,.. RIDGE KMS/160498