IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 664 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2010 IN EP 273/2004 IN LAR.2/1995 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV.K,S/O.KUNJU KRISHNAN, PUTHEN VEEDU,PALACE WARD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 664 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. O R D E R Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 28-10-2010 in E.P.No.273 of 2004 in LAR No.2 of 1995 of the court of learned Prl. Sub Judge, Kollam. There was dispute between the parties as to the balance amount if any due to the petitioner/decree holder. Learned Sub Judge vide the impugned order observed that statement filed by the respondent shows that entire amount as per the decree was deposited, decree is satisfied and accordingly closed the E.P as satisfied. That order is under challenge. The learned counsel contends that as per direction of the court certain amounts were deposited by the respondents on various dates. But, the entire principal amount and interest had not been deposited. While depositing the amount subsequently, respondent has adjusted the said amounts towards principal which could not be done. It is also submitted by learned counsel that there is dispute as to the amount deducted towards tax at source. According to the learned Government Pleader, statement filed by the respondent is true and correct and hence C.R.P. NO. 664 OF 2010 2 the order does not require interference. 3. In spite of various objections raised by the parties as to the amount if any due to the petitioner, the order under challenge does not reflect that the learned Sub Judge has applied mind to those objections and decided the question whether any amount is due to the petitioner and if so, what is the amount due. In that view of the matter the order under challenge cannot be sustained, and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: Order dated 28.10.2010 in E.P.No.273 of 2004 in LAR 2 of 1995 of the court of learned Principal sub Judge, Kollam is set aside, execution petition is reopened and is remitted to the court below for fresh decision on the question as to whether any further amount is due to the petitioner. The learned Sub Judge is directed to decide the question after considering contentions raised by both sides in the matter. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE mns