IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 381 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/08/2007 IN EP.76/07 IN LAR.1020/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------ COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE(NOW KNOWN AS COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE), KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER & 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *1. M.T.JOLLY, S/O.LATE THOMAS, MANAYATHARA HOUSE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. * ANNA PANANGADAN, D/O.M.T.JOLLY, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI IS APPOINTED AS THE COURT GUARDIAN/NEXT FRIEND OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 4.11.08 IN I.A.NO.1527/08. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.381 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th November, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 3.8.2007 in E.P.No.76 of 2007 in L.A.R.No.1020 of 1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Second judgment debtor, the requisitioning authority for whose instance the land was acquired has filed this revision challenging the propriety and correctness of the amount assessed by the court below, as required to satisfy the decree debt. First respondent is the decree holder and the second respondent, the State. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the liability, the sum due for satisfaction of the decree has not been assessed objectively showing the basis for the amount fixed. There is nothing in the order to indicate how the amount of Rs.10,12,130/- has been arrived by the court below as the amount required for satisfying the decree. That being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that it is based on a balance statement submitted by both sides, which, however, is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner/requisitioning authority. The court below has expressed the view that the balance statement is CRP No.381/08 - 2 - almost correct except a slight mistake in computing the date of first deposit. Without sufficient materials, on the basis of the impugned order alone, it is not possible to conclude that the court below has correctly fixed the liability, the amount due for satisfaction of the decree debt. Both sides are directed to file fresh statements before the court below as to the amount due for satisfaction of the decree, and if at all, any party has objection to the statement of the other side, that can also be brought to the notice of the court by filing separate statement. The court is not expected to calculate the statement of its own, but it has to pass an order afresh taking note of the statements, if any, filed by both sides ascertaining the actual amount due to satisfy the decree debt. On all points of dispute between the parties, definite findings have to be entered by the court below in the order to be passed. The court below is directed to dispose the execution proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. Revision is disposed as indicated above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE CRP No.381/08 - 3 -