IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10590 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- J.RAJESH KUMAR, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE GOVINDAMUTTAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM PIN 690 527. BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, KAYAMKULAM 690 502. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR ( REVENUE RECOVERY), KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, HARIPAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, SC R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10590 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 1.7.2010. P2. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.9.2010, SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 21.9.2010. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.9.2010 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 21.9.2010 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14.12.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.10590 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of a loan from the 1st respondent bank. He did not repay the same. Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the same. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner raises two contentions. First is that, the petitioner's objections have not been considered by the revenue recovery authorities. Second is that, the debt is barred by limitation. In view of the first contention, I directed the 2nd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon. The learned Government Pleader submits that, for the hearing on the objections, the petitioner did not present himself and objections were considered and rejected. As far as the 2nd contention is concerned, the question of limitation depends on facts as to when exactly the loan was granted, W.P.(C)No.10590 of 2011 -2- whether there is any acknowledgment, whether the loan is given on a mortgage etc. All these facts cannot be decided in a writ petition without taking evidence. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the contention of limitation also in a suit to be filed against the 1st respondent against the demand itself, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/