Kerala High Court
S.Adabi Ummal vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936
OP(C).No. 1055 of 2014 (O)
---------------------------
EP.No.310/2003 in LAR.NO.196/1991 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
PETITIONER(S)/DECREE HOLDER/CLAIMANT`:
----------------
S.ADABI UMMAL
PUTHENVILA PADEDIKAYIL KIZHEKKUTHIL, EDAKUNNAM MURI
NOORNADU VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REJI JOSEPH.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-08-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 1055 of 2014 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31/01/1995 PASSED BY THE SUB
COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN LAR NO.196/1991.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN E.P NO.310/2003 IN
LAR NO.196/1991.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2
BALANCE STATEMENT.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2014 OF THE SUB COURT,
MAVELIKKARA IN E.P NO.310/2003 IN LAR NO.196/1991 OF THE
SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
---------------------
O.P (C) No.1055 of 2014
---------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The impugned order reads thus:-
"State to deposit the admitted balance to 11/3/14."
The apprehension of the petitioner is that the execution court may record full satisfaction of the award in haste.
2. The rule of appropriation in the case of partial deposit has been detailed in Mooney v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 961]. The directions therein shall be adverted to while quantifying the amount due finally. The execution court shall record full satisfaction after ensuring that the amount due under the award is paid accordingly.
3. The impugned order is however passed peremptorily as a step in procedure pending final orders. No case for interference has been made out in this Original Petition therefore at this stage.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.