IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1963 of 2008(H) ------------------------- OS.44/2000 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- M.K.DIVAKARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREE NARAYANA TRADERS AND FINANCIERS LTD. THEVALATHIL BUILDING, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT: ----------------------- V.C.KRISHNAN ACHARI, USHA BHAVAN, ANAPPARA, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1963 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred to set aside Ext.P4 order. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are stated as follows: 2. The writ petitioner herein is the decree holder in OS 44/00. For the execution of decree, he has moved an application EP 71/05. By the present EA he wants to attach the amount due to the claimant Sri. Krishnan Achari in LAR 1/93. By a previous order in LAR, this court had disposed of the matter. The said writ petition was filed regarding the liability for reimbursement of the amount etc. In the Land Acquisition Reference 1/93 the court held that claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to one out of six shares each and Sri. Krishnan Achari is entitled to three out of six shares. The grievance was that claimants 1 to 3 had withdrawn the entire amount deposited by the State before the court. This court disposed of the matter stating that it requires recalculation and if the amount withdrawn by claimants 1 to 3 are only in relation to their share a direction must be given to the State Government to deposit the balance amount and in case if it is found WPC NO 1963/08 2 that they have drawn in excess, they must be directed to redeposit the amount in the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Thus WPC No.17940/06 was disposed of. 3. In the present EA, the writ petitioner wanted that amount due to the Krshnan Achari to be attached in execution of the decree. But the court below disposed of the EA on the ground that there is a stay by the High Court and therefore the petition is dismissed advising the petitioner, if desires, to file a petition after the disposal of the stay order. The said order was passed on 26th October, 2007 and I have disposed of the writ petition on 7.11.07. So the writ petition as well as the stay petition does not exist after 7.11.07. Therefore I direct the court below to restore EA back to file in the light of the above developments and consider it afresh after hearing both sides and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 1963/08 3