IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1053 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, PEEDIAKAL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
--------------------------------------
R.P No.1053 OF 2010 IN
C.R.P No.889 OF 2007
--------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November 2010
ORDER
Review petition has been filed by the State/revision
petitioner urging that a clarification is necessary in the order
passed by this court disposing the revision. The learned
Government Pleader inviting my attention to paragraph 51 of
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2008(1) KLJ SC 463),
which has been referred to in the order disposing the revision with
direction to the execution court to follow the principles laid
thereunder in fixing the amount due to the decree holder, has
urged that when a part deposit is made towards the decree debt
by the judgment debtor State and that amount had been received
without objection by the decree holder, it cannot be reopened
subsequently raising objections to the mode of appropriation.
2. I heard the Government Pleader and also the learned
counsel for the respondent/decree holder. After going through
para 51 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh’s case, it is seen that it
is not the deposit of the amount, but, depositing of the sum
specifying the appropriation under various heads and its
acceptance by the other side without objection, that would
R.P No.1053 OF 2010 IN
C.R.P No.889 OF 2007 – 2 –
preclude a further enquiry over the matter. Be that as it may a
specific direction has been given while disposing the revision that
the principles laid down in Gurpreet Singh’s case have to be
followed in calculating and fixing what is the amount due under
the decree from the judgment debtor to the decree holder. That
being so, I find, whatever grounds available to the State with
respect to the deposits already made can be canvassed by them
with reference to the above decision, and its sustainability, no
doubt, has to be examined by the execution court. No further
clarification is warranted. Subject to the above observations, the
review petition is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
vdv