IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 95 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- LAR. NO. 282/1981 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ (DECREE HOLDER): --------------------------------------------------------------- NALINI, D/O. MANKAYIL RAGHAVA PANICKER, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAVIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 95 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam whereby the execution application was dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the calculation accepted by the Court as filed by judgment debtor is incorrect. He had brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India) (2006 (8) SCC 457) wherein the Apex Court held that, “If at a particular award stage there is a shortfall in the deposit made by the State against the award decreed at that stage, the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the deposit on general principles of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards cost and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs”. 2. The learned counsel would submit what the Court has done is to appropriate the principal first and it is against CRP NO. 95 of 2008 -:2:- the established position of law by the Supreme Court. He has also raised other contentions which require reconsideration at the hands of the Court below. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and remit the case back to the said Court for fresh consideration. Both the sides can file any revised statement, if necessary, and then argue the position regarding the appropriation, adjustment etc. in the light of the various decisions of the Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 10.3.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-