The High Court of Kerala held that a Civil Revision Petition regarding a minor excess payment of Rs. 2,536/- cannot be entertained under Section 115 CPC as the amount is too meagre. The court dismissed the petition, ruling it inequitable to order a refund of the amount paid years ago.
Civil Revision Petition failed and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934
CRP.No. 96 of 2012 (B)
--------------------LAR.102/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER:
2. SARADAMMA, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
3. SHEELAMANI, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
4. LALITHAMBIKA, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
5. AJAYAKUMAR, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
6. PRADEEP KUMAR, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
7. MADHUSOODHANAN @ MADHU, POOZHIKKAL VEEDU, VELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, VELIYANADU KARA, EDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE.
-2-
CRP.No. 96 of 2012 (B)
8. SIVA RAJAN, POOZHIKKALVEEDU,VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, MEVELLOOR P.O., PIN.686609.
9. SMT.RAJALAKSHMI, KIZHAKKEKOTTARATHIL VEEDU, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, MEVELLOOR P.O., PIN.686609.
*** ADDL R8 & R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPOONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 5.12.2012 IN IA.2116/12 IN CRP.96/12.**
R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P No.96 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 12th day of December, 2012
O R D E R
The dispute in this Civil Revision Petition concerns about the alleged excess payment of Rs.2,536/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred and thirty six only) towards the decretal amount. The amount is too meagre as to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The amount was paid years ago and it will be inequitable at this juncture to order refund of the amount paid in execution of the award in the land acquisition reference.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE
smm
2
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked to correct a minor excess payment of Rs. 2,536/- in a decretal amount.
Whether refund of an amount paid years ago in execution of an award in a land acquisition reference can be ordered deeming it inequitable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala
Kuttan Nair Krishnan Nair
Saramma
Sheelamani
Lalithambika
Ajayakumar
V.Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
