IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2738 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.11861/2000 Dated 07/06/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ IST RESPONDENT IN O.P ------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS/ (PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN O.P ------------------------ 1. G.ELANGOVAN, S/O.GOPAL, FIRST CROSS STREET, BAKKAVALSALA NAGAR, MADRAS. 2. G.SELVARAJ, S/O.GOPAL, FIRST CROSS STREET, BAKKAVALSALA NAGAR, MADRAS. 3. G.MANOHARAN, S/O.GOPAL, FIRST CROSS STREET, BAKKAVALSALA NAGAR, MADRAS. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHENNAI. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R1 TO R3 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A.No.2738 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 1st respondent in the Original Petition challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 seeking a direction to respondents 4 and 5 herein to take steps to recover the amount due under Ext.P1, Execution Application. The appellant herein, who was the 1st respondent in the writ petition, contended that the owner of the vehicle is also liable for the amount, along with it. Therefore, steps may be taken to recover the amounts from the owner also, it was prayed. The learned Single Judge directed the 4th respondent herein to take steps to recover the amounts as requested by the 5th respondent. It was also ordered that the appellant can proceed against the joint tort feaser, that is, the owner of the vehicle. This appeal is filed contending that when the Railways and another are made liable for a decree amount, the Railways W.A.No.2738/2007 2 need only pay 50% of the amount. The said contention is plainly untenable. The decree can be executed against all or any of the joint tort feasers. Therefore, we find there is nothing wrong with the finding of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps