IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 364 of 2008() -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2007 IN E.P.NO.96 OF 1997 IN LAR NO.5 OF 1986 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI) PETITIONERS: (SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 BEFORE THE COURT BELOW) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.SAINABA, W/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. RAHMATHULLA, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. HABEEB RAHMAN, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, KONDOTTY AMSOM, KOLATHOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. AYISHUMMA, D/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ...2.... C.R.P.NO.364/2008 7. RAHBIYA, D/O.K.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, KARUMARUKKAD AMSOM, VAZHAKKAD DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT:(RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1002/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.364/2008 DISMISSED 11/04/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 364 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, in EP 96/97 in LAR 5/86. By the said order, the court held that there is an excess remittance of Rs.2,32,142/- and therefore closed the EP after recording full satisfaction with liberty to the State to take steps to get back the excess remittance. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners have contended before me that the court has lost sight of the Apex court decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 457]. At page 485 in para 53 of the said decision the Apex court held as follows: “Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment-debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of appropriation.” C.R.P. NO.364/08 2 3. So the mode of appropriation, how it is to be done are clearly laid down in the said decision. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the court has not taken any of these matters for arriving at this figure. 4. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the mater is remitted back to the lower court with a direction to consider the question afresh, especially the question of appropriation and other factors in the light of the enunciated principles laid down by the courts on various decisions. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 31.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.364/08 3