IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1256 of 2004() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/07/2004 IN EP.NO.237/1997 IN LAR.164/1993 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------- PARVATHY AMMA LEELAMMA, KETTIDATHIL, T.C. 5/2382, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.SUDHEENDRAN. K.Y. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.R.REMA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J ====================== C.R.P.No.1256 of 2004 =============-=========== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 ORDER The revision petition is filed by the State challenging the order dated 7.7.2004 in E.P.No.237/97 in L.A.R.No.164/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The respondent who is the decree holder filed the execution petition for realisation of the amount due under the decree in L.A.R.No.164/93. This Court in L.A.A.No.864/97, directed the State to deposit 50% of the decree amount. While directing deposit of 50%, this Court did not specify as to how the deposit is to be apportioned. The trial court took a view that the mode of apportionment resorted by the decree holder debiting the deposit on 24.3.98, as against the total due on that date is to be accepted. The learned Judge held that the mode of apportionment sought for by the State of Kerala by resorting the apportionment as against the amount due then under different heads was held to be not proper and therefore the learned Judge did not accept the said method of apportionment. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the decree holder/respondent. The mode of C.R.P.No.1256/2004 2 apportionment resorted to as claimed by the decree holder by a deposit made by the State on 24.3.98 is seen debited, in lump as against the total due as on 24.3.98. In other words the 50% deposit made by the State was adjusted towards the amount due as on 23.4.98. I do not find any reason to find that the apportionment of the amount in deposit accepted by the court below is wrong. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the statement filed by the decree holder is wrong since interest on interest is also worked out and that the amount payable by the decree is less than what is stated. Both the revision petitioner and the decree holder shall file statement before the court below showing the correct calculation and the amounts due under the decree. The court below shall ascertain the correct amounts due on the basis of the statements filed by the parties and then pass appropriate orders directing the State to pay or remit the balance amount due as per the decree. The civil revision petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE dvs