IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 1097 of 2001() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2000 IN EP.145/1995 IN LAR.58/1989 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ........................................ REVN. PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN VASU, VAIKKATHUPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 2. MADHAVAN, KARUNAKARAN. 3. KOMA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1097 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 O R D E R State has filed this revision challenging the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in E.P.No.145/1995 in L.A.R.No.58/1989. The execution court accepting the statement filed by the decree holder directed the judgment debtor State to deposit the amount in tune with the statement. That order is impeached in this revision contending that no opportunity was given to the State to challenge the statement, and, further, the interest on solatium in the present case, at 12% additional market value is not permissible under law as settled by the decision of the Supreme Court. Though notice was served on the respondents, none of them has entered appearance. 2. I heard the learned Govt. Pleader. From the submissions made, I find sufficient opportunity was not CRP.1097/01 2 extended to the judgment debtor State to challenge the statement filed by the decree holder. There is also much force in the submissions made by the Govt.Pleader that the statement has not been correctly and duly prepared and that a claim for an excess amount was raised by the decree holder seeking interest on solatium at 12% additional market value. The impugned order is set aside directing the learned Sub Judge to consider the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the judgment debtor State to file objections to the statement of the decree holder. Revision is accordingly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp