IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 293 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2003 IN EA 658/02 IN EP 355/98 IN LAR.117/1982 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------ HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. PHENOL PROJECT, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16, NOW SHIFTED TO AMBALAMUGAL-682 302. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------ BABY JOSEPH, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, KODINJOOR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 818 OF 2004 IN C.R.P NO. 293 OF 2004 DISMISSED 30.5.2008 SD/-HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 293 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner is the requisitioning authority in the Land Acquisition Reference case No.117/1982. on the file of the First additional sub court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner is the second judgment debtor in E.P No. 355/1998 in L.A.R. 117/1998 This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2003 in E.A 658/2002 ordering attachment, in E.P. No.355/1988. 2. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent had filed an execution petition earlier as E.P No. 150 of 1988 for execution of decree The said petition was dismissed on 16.7.1988 on depositing of Rs. 1,22,291/- by the revision petitioner. The respondent subsequently filed another petition as E.P. No. 515 of 1991 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,87,439.17 The petitioner filed an objection and deposited an amount of Rs.1,14,515/- on 7.11.1991 The respondent though was entitled to get only an amount of Rs. 77,161.13, withdrew the full deposited amount The respondent had thus withdrawn an excess amount of Rs. 37,353.87 The E.P No.515 of 1991 was dismissed on 20.3.1993. The respondent on 25.7.1998 filed yet another petition as E.P No. 355 of 1998 claiming an amount of Rs. 49,804.81. The revision petitioner herein filed an objection C.R.P No. 293 of 2004 -2- and calculation statement stating that no amount is due to the respondent/decree holder, on the other hand the respondent/decree holder is liable to return to the revision petitioner the excess amount of Rs. 37,353.87 withdrawn by him. The respondent on 21.8.2001 filed a balance statement showing that the balance amount due to him was Rs. 60,770/- The execution court without considering the objection of the petitioner and without determining the amount if any, due to the respondent has ordered for taking further steps in the execution petition and on 24.1.2002 the court has ordered attachment. The petitioner therefore filed a review petition as E.A. 658 of 2002 praying for an order to review the attachment order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the execution Court. Respondent filed an objection The execution court without considering the settled legal principles, by order dated 14.10.2003 held that the respondent has filed statement squarely in accordance with decree and the balance amount due to respondent as on13.11.1991 isRs. 24,678.45 and dismissed E.A. No. 658 of 2002. 3. The revision petitioner submitted that the calculation made by the decree holder is wrong and it is wrongly accepted by the execution Court. The principles regarding the rule of appropriation and adjustment of amount in Land acquisition cases are well settled by the recent C.R.P No. 293 of 2004 -3- decisions of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Mariamma 2005 (2) KLT 587 and Supreme court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2008(1) KLJ 463 and therefore the correct calculation is necessitated. In case the revision petitioner file the correct calculation statement in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and if it shows the excess amount has been deposited by him mistakenly, the respondent is bound to return the said excess amount. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Before considering the said questions the execution court shall call for calculation statements from both sides. It must be prepared in accordance with the principles laid down as stated above. The execution court shall consider this matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. E.A. 658/2002 filed for reviewing the order of attachment is set aside The counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 29.5.2001 in C.R.P 784/1998 wherein it is held that the closing of earlier execution petition on the basis that the amount claimed by the decree holders and if the amount is deposited that amounts to recording satisfaction of the decree The said principle laid down by this Court shall C.R.P No. 293 of 2004 -4- be considered before passing orders. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if any balance amount is due to the decree holder/respondent he is not entitled to claim the said amount . Whatever is asked is deposited which amounts to recording satisfaction of the decree The execution court is directed to consider this contention of the revision petitioner as well. The order shall be passed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is set aside.The Civil Revision petition is disposed of, as stated above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es