In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the plea challenging an order closing an execution petition. The Court held the prior order recording receipt of judgment debt and excess amount had become final, deeming further proceedings unsustainable.
The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/22ND POUSHA, 1938
CRP.No. 525 of 2012 () -----------------------
CRP 1210/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA LAR 99/1990 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:
KURIAKOSE JOY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAMPI SRI.SOMAN P.PAUL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -----------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM (CONCERNED OFFICE VIZ. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) BEING WOUND UP) PERIYARVALLY IRRIGATION PROJECT.
BY ADV. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.I. JOHNSON
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
CRP.No. 525 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
========================= C.R.P.No.525/2012
O R D E R
The decree holder in E.P.No.72 of 2002 on the file of
the court of the Sub Judge, Kochi has approached this court challenging an order passed in the above execution petition. The execution petition was filed to execute the award in L.A.R.No.99 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi. The decree holder has a case that an amount of Rs.2,94,192.05 is due to him. The judgment debtor is the State. Their case is that they have paid the amount in excess. In fact, the decree holder had earlier filed an execution petition as E.P.No.195 of 1993 for executing the award which was closed on 24.1.1996 on the respondent depositing an amount of Rs.1,96,723/- with liberty to file fresh petition if balance is due. Thereafter, again the decree holder filed
CRP 525/2012
-:2:-
E.P.No.103 of 1996 for realizing an amount of
Rs.2,95,260.81. That petition was closed on 11.10.2000 as per a detailed order. While closing the execution petition, the court below noted that the decree holder had received an amount of Rs.21,930/- in excess from the judgment debtor. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.72 of 2002, which is closed by order dated 27.7.2012. It also appears that the decree holder filed E.A.No.349 of 2003 to review and set aside the order dated 11.10.2000 in E.P.No.103 of 1996. That application was dismissed on 23.3.2009. Against that order, the decree holder filed C.R.P.No.1210 of 2004 before this court. This court allowed the civil revision petition and remanded E.A.No.349 of 2003 to the court below. Thereafter, after hearing parties, the court below dismissed E.A.No.349 of 2003 on 3.11.2011. Thus, the order in E.P.No.103 of 1996 became final. In the light of the above, the judgment debtor contended before the court below that E.P.No.72 of 2002
CRP 525/2012
-:3:-
was not maintainable. I do see force in the above submission. In the light of the fact that the order in E.P.No.103 of 1996 became final, the court below dismissed the present E.P. It is impugning the said order this civil revision petition is filed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and as noted by the court below, in view of the fact that the order passed in E.P.No.103 of 1996 dated 11.10.2000 has become final, recording satisfaction and noting that the decree holder received the excess amount deposited by the judgment debtor, there is no scope in proceeding further with this revision. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a fresh execution petition is maintainable when a prior order recording satisfaction of decree in the same execution matter has become
Whether recording satisfaction of decree by the court below and noting receipt of excess amount deposited by judgment debtor provides scope for further proceedings in revision.
KURIAKOSE JOY
STATE OF KERALA
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court