IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 303 of 2010(O) ------------------------ LAR.78/1984 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- CICILY, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. MATHEW, KAITHARATHU VEETTIL, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. ALWAYE MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA-685002 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.303 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order dated December 6, 2008 in an unnumbered execution petition in LA.R.No.78 of 1984 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur. Petitioner filed an application for issue of cheque for Rs.2,89,157/- but the executing court found that petitioner is not entitled to that much amount in view of the order passed by the court in the same proceeding in C.A.No.158 of 2001-02 in E.P.No.292 of 1999 on 29-10-2001 holding that of the amount deposited, entitlement of petitioner was to get only Rs.1,40,952/-. Order dated December 6, 2008 is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel states that petitioner is entitled to adjust the amount deposited towards interest and cost and then towards the principal in which case petitioner is entitled to get the entire amount deposited. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that principle of res judicata would apply to the different stages of same proceedings and that so far as order dated 29-10-2001 is not challenged and has become final, executing court could not have entertained the present application which in effect would amount to a review of the order O.P(C).No.303 of 2010 : 2 : dated 29-10-2001. 2. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that an adverse order was passed in the same matter on 29-10-2001 and that order has become final. In that situation, the present application for cheque cannot be sustained. Executing court cannot be faulted for taking the view that in view of the order dated 29-10- 2001 which has become final, it cannot go behind that order. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-