Sainabha V.K vs The Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 1533 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 19180 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

            SAINABHA V.K.
            W/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY, VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O,
            KURUVATTOOR,VALLAPUZHA (VIA), PALAKKAD DISTRICT

            BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE MANAGER
            THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, VALLAPUZHA BRANCH, P.O,
            VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 679336

    2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            VALLAPUZHA VILLAGE, POST VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT 679336

    3       DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
            REVENUE RECOVERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
            679101

    4       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001

            BY ADV SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   15.02.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

                                     2




                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                      --------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.19180 of 2014
               ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 15th day of February, 2022


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the records of the case leading upto Exts.P1 and P2 and quash the same by means of an appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. Issue an appropriate order and declare that the loan allegedly due is time barred.

iii. Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery

proceedings initiated against her in connection with an

agricultural loan taken from the 1st respondent Bank. It is an

admitted fact that the petitioner availed an agriculture cash

credit loan of Rs.38,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank. It is

also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not repaid any W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

amount towards the loan account. Since there is no

repayment, the Bank requested the Revenue Authorities to

take revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner and

Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice was issued in which it can be

seen that the requisition for revenue recovery was in the year

2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that the loan was

availed on 11.11.2009 and the requisition for revenue

recovery proceedings was initiated only in the year 2014.

According to the petitioner, it is a time barred debt for which

no revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated in the light

of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V.R.

Kalliyanikutty and Another [1999 (1) KLJ 811]. Hence

this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. I also

heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition and submitted that the

revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner is

unsustainable because it is a time barred debt. On the other

hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner availed

loan and not repaid a single paise. The petitioner is raising --

contention before this Court without paying the admitted

amount. The learned Standing Counsel also takes me through

Exts.R1(a) produced as an additional document, which is the

agreement executed by the petitioner with the Bank. The

learned Standing Counsel takes me through Clause III of the

agreement and also the endorsement in Clause XIII. It is

specifically stated in Clause XIII that the loan is valid for three

years. According to the Standing Counsel, the limitation

period will start only after three years from the date on which

the loan is availed and hence the requisition for revenue

recovery proceedings is within time.

5. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and

the Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent. The learned

counsel for the petitioner is disputing the endorsement in

Ext.R1(a). He contended that Ext.R1(a) is produced with a

statement filed on 02.02.2022, when this Court directed to

produce the same and that itself shows that, it is a

subsequently created document. The learned counsel

submitted that the endorsement in Ext.R1(a) is fabricated and W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

it is not a mortgage agreement and it is an agreement which is

mentioned as 'Choondippanayathinulla karaar'

(ചൂണ്ടിപ്പണയത്തിനുള്ള കരാർ).

6. From the above contentions, it is clear that the

petitioner is disputing Ext.R1(a). In such circumstances, this

Court cannot decide this matter in a petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is free to approach

the civil court, if he want to prove the same. Admittedly this

writ petition is pending from 2014 onwards. On 31.07.2014,

this Court passed the following interim order:

"Admit.

There shall be an interim stay of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner as evidenced in Ext.P1, for a period of one month, on the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), which shall be kept by the Bank in a separate account and shall not be adjusted to the loan account."

7. Thereafter the interim order was extended. Since

the matter is pending before this Court, the respondents have

not taken any further steps based on Ext.P1 revenue recovery W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

notice. In such circumstances, the period during which this

writ petition is pending before this Court can be excluded

while calculating the limitation period, if a suit is filed by the

petitioner. With that observation, this writ petition can be

closed.

Therefore, this writ petition is closed granting liberty to

the petitioner to approach the civil court to redress her

grievance, if she is advised so. The period during which this

writ petition was pending (23.07.2014 to 15.02.2022) will be

excluded if a suit is filed by the petitioner before the

competent civil court, while calculating the limitation period.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE W.P.(C).No.19180/2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19180/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED U/SOF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-

04-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS AUTHORISED OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND MUHAMMEDKUTTY DEMANDING PAYMENT OF RS 59479/-

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WHILE AVAILING AN AGRICULTURAL LOAN OF RS.39,000/- ON 10.11.2009