ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in EP.No.87 of 2019 in MCOP.No.67 of 2008 dated 24.01.2020 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Essential Commodities Court, Thanjavur.

2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor/second respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 are the decree holders/claimants in MCOP.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Essential Commodities Court, Thanjavur.

3. It is not in dispute that the learned Additional District Judge, after conducting enquiry, has passed the award on 15.02.2011 directing the insurer to pay Rs.22,68,160/- with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and costs . In pursuance of the said award, the revision petitioner/insurer had deposited a sum of Rs. 27,36,049/-. Subsequently, the claimants have sent a notice to the insurer stating that the total award amount with interest and costs comes to Rs. 28,61,046.65/- and since the insurer had deposited only Rs.27,36,049/-, the balance amount of Rs.1,24,997.65/- is still due from the insurer and that thereafter, the claimants have laid the Execution Petition in EP.No.87 of 2019. It is pertinent to mention that the Execution Petition was laid only for the recovery of balance amount of Rs.1,24,997.65/- with subsequent interest.

4. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that after receiving the notice of the claimants dated 23.11.2011, they came to know that they have failed to add another sum of Rs.80,162/- by mistake and hence they have filed a separate calculation memo and also deposited the said amount of Rs.80,162/- before the Additional District Court cum Essential Commodities Court, Thanjavur on 23.12.2019.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Executing Court not satisfied with the payment of Rs.80,162/- and for not depositing the balance amount as claimed by the claimants, has passed an impugned order on 24.01.2020 attaching the movables available in the office of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurer has come forward with the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that they have deposited Rs.27,36,049/- after deducting Tax Deduction at Source (herein after referred as 'TDS') of Rs.42,859/-, that neither the claimants nor the Court has considered the deduction of TDS and that the Executing Court without enquiring as to whether any amount is still due by the insurer, has passed the impugned order attaching the properties.

7. It is evident from the records that both the claimants as well the insurer have filed their calculation memos. It is not in dispute that subsequently, decree was amended and the cost already awarded at Rs. 31,834/- was amended as Rs.51,835/-.

8. According to the claimants, after deducting the amount of Rs. 27,36,049/- deposited by the insurer and after addition of further interest and the difference in cost awarded, sum of Rs.1,24,997.65/- being the balance is to be paid by the insurer. But, on the other hand, the revision petitioner in their calculation memo has specifically stated that after deducting TDS amount, they have deposited Rs.27,36,049/- and after addition of difference in cost and also interest omitted to be calculated earlier, totalling at Rs.80,162/- has been deposited.

9. It is evident from the records that the Executing Court after recording the representation of the claimants side that a sum of Rs. 1,98,124/- is still due with subsequent interest and that the insurer had deposited only Rs.80,123/-, adjourned the matter for the insurer side clarification and thereafter, directed the insurer to furnish the evidence for the satisfaction of the award amount and on the next hearing on 24.01.2020, by recording that the insurer has not furnished any evidence for the satisfaction of the award amount, ordered for attachment of the properties.

10. As rightly contended by the learned couns