IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2602 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUSEELA K.V., MUNDARKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NALANDA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., COCHIN-682026. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KACHERIPADY, KOCHI-18. 2. TAHSILDAR (R.R), K.S.F.E., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NO. 2602 of 2008. DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to produce records relating to Ext.P6 and refix the liability and to adjust the payments made by the petitioner towards the principal and interest. The complaint of the petitioner is that her liability has been quantified by the respondents without taking into account the payments have been made. 2. On behalf of respondents, a statement has been filed and statement of accounts also has been produced as Ext.R1(a). It is stated that the petitioner had joined a kuri and availed of a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 18-7-2000. She had committed default in remitting the instalments from 13-2-2004 and when steps were taken for recovery against the sureties, a writ petition was filed before this Court as W.P.C.No.25627/2005. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the respondents to give fresh statement of account to the petitioner. It is stated WPC.2602/2008 -2- that in compliance with the said judgment, Ext.P6 statement was given to the petitioner which indicated that the outstanding liability was Rs.65,188/- as on 31-12-2007. Answering the contention that remittances have not been correctly credited, the respondents have stated that all payments have been accounted and the details of which are indicated in Ext.R1(a) statement of accounts. 3. From the facts stated above, it is obvious that the dispute between the parties is regarding the accounting of payments that have been made. While the petitioner contends that certain payments have not been credited, respondents have disputed the same and according to them every payments have been accounted and they rely on Ext.R1(a). This being a disputed question of fact, I do not think that the dispute can be resolved in this writ petition. Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ks. WPC.2602/2008 -3- ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================