IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 2095 of 2002() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2001 IN EP. 225 /1995 IN LAR.26/1988 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJAN NARAYANAN (DIED) * 2. JANAKI W/O. NARAYANAN RESIDING AT PUTHEN NIKARTHIL, PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE.(D I E D – LR'S IMPLEADED AND RECORDED) 3. REGHUVARAN S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL, PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE. 4. MOHANAN S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE. 5. SARADA D/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE. 6. ASOKAN S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL, PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE. Kss ...2/- ...2.... C.R.P.NO.2095/2002 *ADDL.R7 & R8 ARE IMPLEADED: R7. KANAKAMMA, VALAVANATTU NJKARTH KALAVAMKODAM. R8. AMMINI, THURUTHE CHAVADI, THURAVOOR. (*THE SECOND RESPONDENT DIED, ADDL. RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 17/12/07 ON I.A.2420/07) BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 2095 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 22ndday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, in EP 225/95 in LAR 26/88. The court by its order held that a no objection is filed by the judgment debtor and therefore decree holders statement is accepted and posted for deposit of the amount. The said order was passed on 5.6.01. Much water has flown thereafter. 2. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that no opportunity was given to the State to file their objections. Even if it is not so, the court is bound to consider and find out what is the correct amount to be paid. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the Government to file a statement. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements till date, the court can fix the amount and direct the judgment debtor to deposit the amount. In case the EP is closed or disposed of, it may be restored and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing both sides. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps