IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1256 of 2004()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARVATHY AMMA LEELAMMA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :11/01/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J
======================
C.R.P.No.1256 of 2004
=============-===========
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008
ORDER
The revision petition is filed by the State challenging the
order dated 7.7.2004 in E.P.No.237/97 in L.A.R.No.164/93 on the
file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The respondent who is the
decree holder filed the execution petition for realisation of the
amount due under the decree in L.A.R.No.164/93. This Court in
L.A.A.No.864/97, directed the State to deposit 50% of the decree
amount. While directing deposit of 50%, this Court did not
specify as to how the deposit is to be apportioned. The trial
court took a view that the mode of apportionment resorted by
the decree holder debiting the deposit on 24.3.98, as against the
total due on that date is to be accepted. The learned Judge held
that the mode of apportionment sought for by the State of Kerala
by resorting the apportionment as against the amount due then
under different heads was held to be not proper and therefore
the learned Judge did not accept the said method of
apportionment.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the
counsel for the decree holder/respondent. The mode of
C.R.P.No.1256/2004
2
apportionment resorted to as claimed by the decree holder by a
deposit made by the State on 24.3.98 is seen debited, in lump
as against the total due as on 24.3.98. In other words the 50%
deposit made by the State was adjusted towards the amount due
as on 23.4.98. I do not find any reason to find that the
apportionment of the amount in deposit accepted by the court
below is wrong. The learned Government Pleader submitted that
the statement filed by the decree holder is wrong since interest
on interest is also worked out and that the amount payable by
the decree is less than what is stated. Both the revision
petitioner and the decree holder shall file statement before the
court below showing the correct calculation and the amounts
due under the decree. The court below shall ascertain the
correct amounts due on the basis of the statements filed by the
parties and then pass appropriate orders directing the State to
pay or remit the balance amount due as per the decree.
The civil revision petition is disposed of as above. No order
as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
dvs