IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3710 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- LAR.139/1984 of II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. P. INDIRA DEVI, KONATHUVILA VEEDU, NEMOM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P. KANAKAMBIKA, T.C.NO.27/6751, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. N. SARALA DEVI AMMA, SANTHINILAYAM, NEMOM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GEETHA GANESH, SANTHINILAYAM, NEMOM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV, SMT.LIGEY ANTONY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3710 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/07/1990 IN LAR NO.139 OF 1984 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE E.A.NO.1021/2006 FILED IN L.A.R.NO.139/1984 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EA NO.1021/06 FILED IN L.A.R.NO.139/1984 BEFORE THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2011 IN E.A.NO.1021/06 IN LAR NO.139/1984 ON FILE OF THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3710 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. The decree holders in L.A.R.No.139 of 1984 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners challenging Ext.P4, order. Learned Sub Judge granted enhanced compensation as per Ext.P1, judgment. Respondent deposited the amount. Later, respondent filed Ext.P2, application stating that petitioners have received `1,28,481/- in excess and that the said amount is to be refunded by petitioners with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Petitioners preferred Ext.P3, objection denying the said claim and making a further claim for `1,16,330/-. Grievance of petitioners is that learned Sub Judge has not adjudicated on the said claim or objection but, has passed Ext.P4, order that 'respondent is directed to take for steps to 8.01.12'. The said order is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel submits that it is not clear what steps are to be taken by petitioners if at all the direction is to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel question of taking steps arise before learned Sub Judge adjudicated on Ext.P3, objection did not arise. OP(C)No.3710/2011 2 4. Learned Government Pleader asserted that as stated in Ext.P2, application amount is due from petitioners. 5. It is not clear from Ext.P4, order what is the step to be taken whether, it is by petitioners or by the respondent. Assuming that since the said order is passed on E.A.No.1021 of 2006 filed by the respondent, direction is to the petitioners (who are respondents in E.A.No.1021 of 2006), it is not clear what steps are to be taken by petitioners since there is no adjudication on the claim/objection made by the parties. Ext.P4, order is liable to be set aside as it is vague. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P4, order is set aside. Learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to adjudicate on the claim made in Ext.P2 and the claim made in Ext.P3. If any of the parties are required to take any steps, learned Sub Judge has to specify what steps are taken by which party. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks