IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25702 of 2008(I)
1. RADHA PURUSHOTHAMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.ST.GEORGE INVESTMENT & KURIES
... Respondent
2. CHERIAN GEROGE,KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA,
3. ANU SAJI, W/O.SAJI,KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA,
4. SUNU GEORGE, KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :26/08/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 25702 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondents the
decree holders in E.P.67 of 2002 in O.S.93 of 1999 on the file of
Sub Court, Thiruvalla. As per Ext.P6 order, executing Court
fixed the balance amount due from the petitioner as
Rs.3,44,093/-. It was challenged before this Court in WP(C).
23185 of 2006. This Court, under Ext.P7 judgment, directed
the executing Court to pass fresh order after fixing the correct
amount due on condition of depositing or paying Rs.50,000/- to
the decree holder before a particular date. Petitioner did not
comply with that order. He filed R.P.145 of 2008 thereafter.
Under Ext.P8 order this Court allowed petitioner to pay
Rs.75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as directed earlier, within
fifteen days from the date of Ext.P8 judgment and directed the
executing Court, if the amount is paid, to fix the correct amount
due. Case of the petitioner is that in compliance with Ext.P8
judgment he had paid the amount and executing Court
WP(C)25702/08 2
thereafter posted the case for hearing and finally without fixing
the actual amount due, as per order dated 22.7.2008, posted the
case for taking steps for settlement of proclamation.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for
petitioner is that inspite of Ext.P7 and P8 directions executing
Court did not fix the correct balance amount due and therefore
the executing Court is to be directed to fix the amount. Ext.P9
the relevant page of the B diary does not show that subsequent
to Ext.P8 order of this Court, the balance amount was fixed by
the executing Court. When under Ext.P7 and P8 judgments this
Court directed the executing Court to hear the parties and fix
the balance amount due, executing Court is bound to fix the
amount. Hence Sub Court, Thiruvalla is directed to fix the
balance amount due after hearing the parties and then settle the
proclamation and direct sale.
Writ petition is disposed accordingly.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-