IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 57 of 2009()
1. THE SECRETARY, KURUMULLOOR WEST
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OOF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, VEDAGIRI DEVASWOM,
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
4. THE SECRETARY, N.S.S.KARAYOGAM NO.153,
5. K.P.NEELAKANDA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 57 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Heard Sri.Mathew Philip, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.K. Ramkumar, learned senior counsel for the second
respondent.
2. Sri.Mathew Philip, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that only 1/4th of the total amount, which was under
deposit with the reference court, is presently retained by that
court and the balance 3/4th is already released to the 2nd
respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Sub
Judge was not justified in observing that the release of balance
1/4th to the appellant will be subject to the outcome of the suit
(O.S.94/2006) pending before that court. According to the
learned counsel, the said observation is likely to cause prejudice
to the appellant in O.S.No.94/2006, the trial of which is yet to be
started.
L.A.A.No.57/2008 2
3. We do not think that the apprehension of the learned
counsel is well founded. By observing that the release of the
amount will be subject to the result of O.S.No.94/2006 it has
been actually made clear by the learned Subordinate Judge that
the question regarding the appellant’s entitlement to the 1/4th is
to be decided by the civil court itself. We also clarify that the
above observation in the impugned judgment will not cause any
prejudice to the interest of the appellant or the other parties in
O.S.94/2006 and that the learned Sub Judge will decide
O.S.No.94/2006 on the basis of the evidence which comes on
record before that court.
4. We have, while admitting this appeal, passed an interim
order directing the Subordinate Judge to retain atleast 1/4th of
the total amount under deposit in the CCD itself and not to
release that portion to anybody until further orders. In
modification of that order, there will be a direction to the
Subordinate Judge to transfer that amount to a Nationalized
Bank having Branch at Kottayam and keep the same as Fixed
Deposit in the name of the court so that once the Subordinate
L.A.A.No.57/2008 3
Judge decides O.S.No.94/2006, the successful party will get
interest also.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk