IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 64 of 2009()
1. K.T.MOHAMMED UNNI
... Petitioner
2. RASIYA, W/O. MOHAMMED UNNI
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :22/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
R.P.No.64 of 2009 in
C.R.P.No.669 of 2008
--------------------------
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that in the
last sentence of paragraph 4 of the order in the
revision petition, this Court observed as follows:
“I have worked out the
calculations made in Annexure-R1
(c) statement and am satisfied
that the statement is incorrect
and is advancing claim for highly
excessive amounts and that on a
proper calculation, amounts due
will be much less and that too by
a few lakhs, even if the mode of
calculation adopted by the
respondents/decree holders is
accepted.”
According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, when such an observation is made, the
court below will be bound by it and even if the
court below finds, on calculation, that further
amounts are due to the decree holders, the
RP 64/09 2
execution court may not accept that, against the
observation so made. It is made clear that the
observation is so made on a random calculation,
which is not asserted to be correct and it may be
that the said observation may not be correct. The
court below need consider the said observation only
as a casual observation made for the purpose of
disposal of the revision petition and it is for the
execution court to work out the correct amount
going by the decisions made mention of in the order
and nothing stands in the way of the execution
court in making a proper calculation as per those
decisions.
This review petition is disposed of with the
above clarification.
22nd January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv