The State of Kerala has filed this Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2009 passed in E.P No.140/2007 in L.A.R No.340/1997 on the files of Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode. The above execution petition was filed for realization of the balance amount deposited in the above L.A.R. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has already deposited the entire decretal amount on 23.12.2008 as per the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 in the above L.A.R. But, the court below went wrong in awarding a further interest on the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner herein. The said apportioning of amount towards interest is made in contravention to the guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457). Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 2. Learned senior Government Pleader advanced arguments challenging the apportioning of interest on the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner and drew my attention to the decision referred above. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner has not filed a calculation statement and in that context the court below has considered the statement filed by the respondent and found it correct. Therefore, there is no circumstance to re-consider the calculation statement accepted by the court below.
3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the said order is a one line non-speaking order accepting the claim of the respondent as such on the reason that the petitioner has not filed calculation statement. I am of the opinion that even if the petitioner has not filed objection to the calculation statement it was incumbent on the court below to pass a speaking order after considering the claim of the respondent under each head. Apparently the impugned order is passed in a perfunctory manner without application of mind.
Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the execution court and the execution court is directed to pass order afresh after affording opportunities to both parties to file fresh calculation statement, if they prefer so. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has deposited any amount in court, the same can be released to the respondent only after passing the order afresh. However, the court below shall pass order afresh within a period of two months from today.
vdv K.HARILAL, JUDGE