Allowed

State of Kerala v. Mary Kutty Joseph

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008CRP/810/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a revision petition because the single-line order fixing the execution balance amount did not explain the calculation. The court set aside the order and directed the lower court to reconsider the matter afresh after examining all filed statements from both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to be considered afresh by the lower court.

State of Kerala Vs Mary Kutty Joseph — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 810 of 2007

¶6

---------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2006 IN EP.128/97 IN LAR.110/1989 OF PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGEMENT DEBTOR

¶8

------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

2. REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R.BINDU

¶12

RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS

¶13

----------------------------------------------------

¶14

MARYKUTTY JOSEPH, OLAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, NAPPATHIMALA, ATHIRAMPUZHA.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER ON CMP NO. 2204/2007 IN C.R.P NO. 810/2007 D.

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

09/04/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶20

True copy

¶21

tga

¶22

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 810 OF 2007

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2008.

¶25

This revision petition is preferred against the order of

¶26

the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the balance amount at Rs.1,00,602. It is submitted by the State Government that the amount paid and the statement filed by the State has not been taken in to account properly by the Sub Judge for arriving at the figure. Since it is a one line order I am not in a position to understand how the Court has entered into the correctness of the amount on the statement filed by the decree holder. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. I set aside the order passed by the Court below and direct the Court below to consider the matter afresh after considering the statements filed by both the parties and the law applicable on the subject. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 31.5.2008.

¶27

The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶29

ul/-

State of Kerala v. Mary Kutty Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Mary Kutty Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Vidyadhiraja Vidya Samajam & Anr. Vs P.N.Krishna Pillai

Moideenkutty Vs Khadeeja

Radhakrishnan.E. Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sreelatha a.Menon Vs Lakshmi Haridas

Sajeev Vs Jose

Gloriya Jose Kotturan Vs a.v.Thomas