IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 250 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2009 IN EP 216/2007 IN LAR.110/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NH II, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------- EDOLICHAKKITTAKANDY ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, THALAKULATHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.250 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010. ORDER State has come in revision challenging the order dated 01.08.2009 in E.P.No.216 of 2007 in L.A.R.No.110 of 1997. The order reads “Petitioner filed calculation statement. Issue attachment. 26.09.2009”. 2. Learned Government Pleader contends that order is unsustainable in that it is not a speaking order. Learned counsel for respondent contends that there was a representation on behalf of the State that the entire amount has been deposited, that claim was checked up and found to be not correct and thereon the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel states that State filed I.A.No.908 of 2009 for lifting the attachment on the premise that entire amount due under the decree has been deposited. According to the learned counsel, petitioner/State has deposited Rs.20,99,163/- on 19.01.2010 which also is not sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. Learned counsel contends that further amount is due to the respondent. 3. The order under challenge cannot stand for the simple reason that it is not a speaking order. Even without stating whether statement filed by the respondent was accepted or not, learned Sub Judge has ordered attachment. CRP No.250/2010 2 Even as per the version of respondent, Rs.20,99,163/- was deposited by the petitioner on 19.01.2010. In the circumstances there is no reason to sustain the impugned order. I make it clear that if any further amount is due to the respondent as per decree, it is open to the respondent to proceed further for realization of such amount, if necessary by attachment of property of the State. It will be open to both sides to file statement as to amount if any due to the respondent. Executing court has to consider the statements and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the direction made above, revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.1157 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks