The only grievance voiced by the petitioners in this petition is regarding that portion of the order which reads as follows:
“The records show that while the State made the above mentioned two deposits, the statements of accounts were also submitted. The statements of accounts were appended to the letters by which the deposits were made. The statements of accounts described the different heads under which the deposits were made.”
2. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, it is contended that informing of the Presiding Officer concerned is not sufficient for the appropriation in the manner in which the State wanted to do. The decisions are clear to the effect that notice of deposit and appropriation should be given to the decree holder so as to be effective in nature. It was asserted by the petitioner that no such notice has been C.R.P. No. 668 of 2013 -2-
given to the decree holder at the time of depositing the amount by the State showing the heads of appropriation. It is therefore contended that the order is bad in law.
3. The Government Pleader pointed out that the details were given in the communication and that is sufficient.
4. As per the decisions of the Apex Court, it would appear that notice to the decree holder is absolutely necessary regarding the appropriation of the amount deposited. That aspect has not been considered by the court below.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the execution court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds