IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.NO. 536 OF 2011() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2011 IN EP.200/2006 IN OPARB.107/1992 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER ----------------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KUPPAKAPPILLY MOLATH, METHALA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ENRAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, RIGHT BANK CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.536 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This revision is in challenge of order dated 27.06.2011 in E.P. No.200 of 2006 in O.P(Arb.) No.107 of 1992 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam. Decretal amount was attached and brought to the court in two installments. Petitioner claimed that he has already paid income tax as assessed by the Department concerned. Execution petition was closed as satisfied. Petitioner's application for issue of cheque was allowed. That order was challenged by the respondents in W.P(C) No.28871 of 2009 complaining that cheque application filed by the respondents was not disposed of. This Court set aside the order and remanded the cheque application to the executing court for fresh consideration of the applications. 2. After remand, executing court dismissed the application for cheque filed by petitioner holding that tax paid by him is not for the decretal amount. That order was challenged by petitioner in this Court in C.R.P. No.104 of 2010. This Court remanded the matter to the executing court for fresh decision. In C.R.P. No.536 of 2011 -: 2 :- the meantime the Income Tax Department assessed petitioner (for payment of additional tax for the decretal amount). Petitioner challenged that order before the Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act and the Appellate Authority directed petitioner to pay Rs.1,67,529/- as additional tax. Petitioner claims to have paid that amount on 01.07.2011. Executing court on 27.06.2011 dismissed the application for cheque preferred by petitioner stating that petitioner has not paid additional tax. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner contended that entire tax including additional tax fixed by the Appellate Authority was paid on 01.07.2011. Hence the order passed by the executing court cannot stand. 4. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that tax was paid subsequently. 5. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that the matter requires reconsideration in view of the fact that tax and additional tax are claimed to be paid by petitioner though subsequent to the impugned order. Resultantly, Civil Revision is allowed. Order dated 27.06.2011 in E.P. No.200 of 2006 in O.P(Arb.) No.107 of 1992 is C.R.P. No.536 of 2011 -: 3 :- set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing court for fresh decision in view of payment of tax and additional tax. Learned Sub Judge is directed to expedite decision in the matter. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv