IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 605 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2009 IN E.P.NO.26/2008 IN LAR.90/1998 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SYAMALA SIVADASAN, DILEEP SADANATHIL, KARUVATTA, KARTHIKAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT: JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K.T.LILLY FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON 14/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.605 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 ORDER The revision petitioner was the decree holder in E.P. No.26 of 2008 in L.A.R No.90 of 1998 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The above E.P. was filed on 30.1.2008 claiming an amount of Rs.1,49,126/- more due from the respondent as on the date of execution petition, after deducting an amount of Rs.9,89,247/- deposited earlier by the respondent. Respondent filed an objection along with a statement of account contending that an amount of Rs.149/- only is due from him. The petitioner filed an objection on 24.3.2008 along with a statement of account contending that as on 24.3.2008, the amount due to the petitioner is Rs.1,48,610/-. 2. The learned Sub Judge on considering the statement of accounts, took a view that amount due is deposited and the E.P. was C.R.P. No.605 of 2009 :2: closed. Against that order, the decree holder/claimant filed this C.R.P. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to the following facts. 9% of interest for one year from 24.11.1997 to 23.11.1998 under Section 28 was calculated for enhanced land value and 30% solatium only. But the according to the view in 2001(3) KLT 489, AIR 2002 (SC) 3499 and 1998(4) KLT 142, 9% interest ought to have been calculated for aggregate amount including enhanced land value of 30% solatium and 12% interest. Similarly 15% interest has been calculated for enhanced value and solatium. But 15% interest ought to have been calculated for aggregate amount. But the Court below without considering the objection and statement of account, closed the execution petition relying on the statement filed by the respondent alone. C.R.P. No.605 of 2009 :3: 5. On going through the order under challenge, it is evident that it is not a speaking order and nothing is mentioned about the calculation statement filed by the revision petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that in the interest of justice the order under challenge has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back for fresh consideration. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed. The order in E.P. No.26 of 2008 in L.A.R. No.90 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Mavelikkara dated 17.1.2009 closing that E.P. is set aside and that E.P. is restored to file and remanded back to the Sub Court, Mavelikkara for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to file fresh statement. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/