IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH APRIL 2007 / 23RD CHAITHRA 1929 WP(C).No. 11532 of 2007(W) -------------------------- EP 351/2005 IN LAR.155/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,N.PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: JOSE, S/O.VAREETH, AGED 58 YEARS, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, JOSEPURAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 11532 of 2007 W ---------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the decree holder in L.A.R.No. 155/02 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Parur. His grievance is that though Exhibit P1 award was passed on 26.3.2005 and thereunder an amount of Rs.5,29,265/- with interest is due from the respondent State and the petitioner filed Exhibit P2 petition as early as in 2005, the respondent State has not deposited the amount and the court below is not disposing of the execution petition, executing the award. Therefore, he has sought for a direction being given to the Additional Sub Judge, North Parur to dispose of Exhibit P2 execution petition in L.A.R. No.155/02 forthwith. 2. Report was called for from the Additional Sub Judge, North Parur and he has reported that the EP is one filed as late as on 2.12.2005, but, since WPC 11532/07 2 no deposit was made, the case was posted for further steps by the decree holder, but, the decree holder has not hitherto filed the attachment schedule so as to enable the court to issue order of attachment in execution of the decree. This means that fault is on the part of the counsel appearing for the decree holder in the court below. Probably, the mistake is shielded from the part of the petitioner/decree holder and this writ petition has been caused to be filed. In view of filing of this writ petition unnecessarily, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the State. 13th April, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv