K.P. MOHANAN Vs. CHANDRAMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 267 of 2009 in O.S. No. 486 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. At the request of both the parties, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath organised by the District Legal Services Authority and the same was settled for Rs. 1,35,000/- on 24.06.2014 as per Ext.P1 order. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid on that day and the balance amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was ordered to be paid on or before 31.07.2014 and the case was posted to 31.07.2014. It was further ordered that on getting the amount, the document with respect to one acre of land in Kalavoor Village, which now stands in the name of the petitioner Chandra Mohan, will be re-conveyed to the judgment debtor Mohanan.

(2.) On 31.07.2014, when the case was taken up, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit the amount before the court. Neither the respondent/decree holder nor his counsel was present before the court. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the registry to permit him to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- mentioned in Ext.P1 order, he was informed to file a separate petition for getting a direction from the Officer to deposit the amount before the court. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed E.A. No. 171 of 2014 vide Ext.P2. The Additional Munsiff, as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.07.2014, adjourned the matter to 06.08.2014 observing that "Judgment debtor present. Judgment debtor ready to deposit the amount before the court. No representation for Decree Holder. Amount not deposited till 5 p.m. Call on 06.08.2014.". On 06.08.2014, the Additional Munsiff, as per Ext.P4 order dismissed the EP observing that the amount was not deposited as per the direction of the award. On 06.08.2014, eventhough the decree holder was absent, the Additional Munsiff as per Ext.P5 order restored E.P to file, directing to produce the encumbrance certificate and valuation certificate for the settlement of proclamation.

(3.) According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the amount as per the direction of Ext.P1 award, the Additional Munsiff was reluctant to accept the same and accordingly dismissed the application. The order in the award was to pay the amount directly to the respondent/decree holder. The registry refused to accept the same stating that there was no such order to receive the amount. It was also contended that the court below ought to have noticed that in the execution proceedings either the decree holder or his counsel was obliged to be present before the court when the case was posted for consideration. The order of dismissal of Ext.P2 application vide Ext.P3 order is illegal, unsustainable and arbitrary.