IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1773 of 2002() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/06/2002 IN EA. 164 /2002 IN E.P. NO.308 OF 1999 IN OS.129/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- K. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KOCHASARI, KALARICKAL, DISTRICT COURT WARD, THEKKENARYAD MURI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. THANKAPPAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. R. SANKAR, S/O. RUDRADAS, NIZHANTHAM, THONDANKULANGARA, THEKKENARYAD MURI, ALAPPUZHA. 3. V. SAROJA, W/O. SANKAR OF DO. BY ADV. SEI. K.S. SAJEEV KUMAR-R1 AND R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.4302 OF 2002 IN C.R.P. NO. 1773 OF 2002. DISMISSED 2.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1773 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No.127 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha. He is challenging the order passed by the same court in E.A. No.164 of 2002 in E.P. No.308 of 1999 in O.S. No.129 of 1998 in which the first respondent herein is the decree holder. The second respondent herein is the judgment debtor in both the suits. E.P. No.308 of 1999 was filed by the decree holder in O.S. No.129 of 1998. In the said execution proceedings, the land with the building comprised in Survey No. 279/1 of Aryad South Village was attached and proclaimed for sale. The revision petitioner filed E.A. No.164 of 2002 claiming rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale of the aforesaid property towards satisfaction of the decretal amount in O.S. No.127 of 1998 which comes around Rs.1,56,605.50. The court below passed the impugned order allowing rateable distribution on condition that there is balance amount left after discharging the decree holder's debt as per the decree and the cost. C.R.P. NO.1773/2002 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted before me that going by the impugned order, the revision petitioner/decree holder in O.S. No.127 of 1998 is not likely to get any amount towards discharge of the decree debt. According to him, the proper course for the court below to have adopted was to allow proportionate share of the amount available on sale of the attached property or in other words, the court below ought to have allowed rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale in satisfaction of the decree in both the suits proportionately. By passing the impugned order, it is contended that the court below has virtually disallowed the application for rateable distribution. Counsel also contended that the court below had not followed the provisions contained in Section 73 C.P.C. 3. Going by the impugned order, it can be seen that none of the questions raised by the decree holder in O.S. No.127 of 1998 was considered by the court bellow. The order passed is a cryptic order virtually disallowing the claim raised by the revision petitioner in the above suit. The question whether proportionate allotment of the amount obtained by sale or whether rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale proportionally is a question which the court below ought to have C.R.P. NO.1773/2002 3 considered in a better perspective. The court below shall consider the maintainability and merits of the contentions with reference to the provisions contained in Section 73 C.P.C. and other settled positions. 4. In the result, the order under revision is set aside. The court below is directed to pass orders afresh after considering the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and others. The order shall be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1773/2002 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1773/2002 O R D E R 2ND JUNE, 2008