The limited prayer in this revision petition relates to the legality of the order in E.P.No.218/2003 in L.A.R No.75/1993 whereby the court below has ordered that the balance statement filed by the State is to be accepted and recorded that the decree debt is fully satisfied. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that the finding of the court below is not justified and it is not in accordance with law and also that it is not in terms of the principles laid down in the decision in State of Kerala vs. Jose
(2010 KHC 442) wherein in paragraph 3 it is observed as follows:
“Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also perusing the order impugned in the revision, I find the court below has not followed the correct principles applicable with respect to the apportionment of the amount deposited, to satisfy the decree. In the order, the learned Sub Judge has expressed the view that C.R.P. No.689/2014 2 partial deposit of the amount made by the State to satisfy the decree has to be adjusted on the principal amount due to the decree holder. That view is not correct. The correct mode of apportionment to be made in such cases is clarified in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006 KHC 1608: 2008 (1) KLJ 463 (SC) : 2006 (8) SCC 457. The decree holder is entitled to claim apportionment of the amount deposited first towards the interest and cost and then only for adjustment in the principal amount due. Evidently, such a method of apportionment has not been followed by the execution court for adjusting the amount from the deposit made. For that solitary reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside”.
3. The case on hand stands on a similar footing and there is no justification as to why the principles laid down in the above decision cannot be applied to the present case.
For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. Every endeavour may be taken to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at C.R.P. No.689/2014 3 any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.