IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1053 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.889/2007 Dated 31/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, PEEDIAKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TOMY SEBASTIAN, PEEDIAKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, PIN-686 562. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P No.1053 OF 2010 IN C.R.P No.889 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November 2010 ORDER Review petition has been filed by the State/revision petitioner urging that a clarification is necessary in the order passed by this court disposing the revision. The learned Government Pleader inviting my attention to paragraph 51 of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2008(1) KLJ SC 463), which has been referred to in the order disposing the revision with direction to the execution court to follow the principles laid thereunder in fixing the amount due to the decree holder, has urged that when a part deposit is made towards the decree debt by the judgment debtor State and that amount had been received without objection by the decree holder, it cannot be reopened subsequently raising objections to the mode of appropriation. 2. I heard the Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. After going through para 51 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh's case, it is seen that it is not the deposit of the amount, but, depositing of the sum specifying the appropriation under various heads and its acceptance by the other side without objection, that would R.P No.1053 OF 2010 IN C.R.P No.889 OF 2007 - 2 - preclude a further enquiry over the matter. Be that as it may a specific direction has been given while disposing the revision that the principles laid down in Gurpreet Singh's case have to be followed in calculating and fixing what is the amount due under the decree from the judgment debtor to the decree holder. That being so, I find, whatever grounds available to the State with respect to the deposits already made can be canvassed by them with reference to the above decision, and its sustainability, no doubt, has to be examined by the execution court. No further clarification is warranted. Subject to the above observations, the review petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv