IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 1012 of 2003() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.86/97 IN ARC 180/95-96 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PERINTALMANNA) REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER(DECREE HOLDER) ---------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, PERINTALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS(JUDGMENT DEBTORS) -------------------------------------------- 1. V.SAIDALIKUTTY S/O. MAMMED, VALLIKKODAN HOUSE, CHEAKKAPARAMBU, ANGADIPURAM. 2. C.MUHAMMEDALI S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, VALLIKKODAN HOUSE, CHERAKKAPARAMBA, ANGADIPURAM. 3. V.ABDU NAZAR, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, VALLIKKODAN HOUSE, CHERAKKAPARAMBA, ANGADIPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.2404/2003 IN C.R.P. NO.1012/2003 DISMISSED 29/1/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.1012 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice is not completed on the 3rd respondent. But, I find that the third respondent was only a co- judgment debtor along with the first respondent- the Principal judgment debtor. The first respondent has been served and he has appeared through Advocate Sri.P.Samsudin. I feel that to decide the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petition, presence of the third respondent is not necessary at all. 2. Under the impugned order, the reference court has recorded full satisfaction of the decree purporting to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (AIR 2001 SC 3095). I had occasion to decide an identical case in C.R.P No.344/2003. I have observed in my judgment in C.R.P.No.344/2003 that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India's case (supra) (full text reported in AIR 2001 SC 3095) formulated certain guidelines to govern the trial courts and has CRP.No.1012/2003 2 not laid down any hard and fast rule that in all money decrees interest shall be at the rate of 6% only. Following the view I have taken in C.R.P No.344/2003, I set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Munisff to take a fresh decision in the matter after hearing both sides. While taking decision, the learned Munsiff will have due regard the judgment in C.R.P. No.344/2003 (a copy of which will be furnished to the court by the judgment debtors) and also the full text of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the learned Munsiff at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the judgment in C.R.P. 344/2003. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk CRP.No.1012/2003 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.1012 OF 2003 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 29th JANUARY 2009