IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2480 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32969/2008 Dated 06/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE KEERAMPARA SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY K.C.GEORGE, AGED 42, S/O. CHACKO, KARAKOMBIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.CHERIAN, S/O. ABRAHAM, PELAKUDIYIL, THATTEKKAD POST, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. NABARD, KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, PUNNAN ROAD, P.B.NO.5613. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS -R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2480 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The first respondent is the appellant. The writ petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction to the appellant-Bank to write off the dues in respect of the agricultural loan availed of by him, extending the benefit of Ext.P3 circular. The learned Single Judge found that renewal of the loan so as to deny the benefit of Ext.P3 was not justified and hence set aside the interim orders with a direction to the Bank to reconsider the application of the writ petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P3, ignoring the alleged renewal of the loan. 2. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submits that the writ petitioner was not a defaulter who is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P3. We do not find that such a contention was advanced before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, even otherwise, we fail to understand as to why the loan is renewed, if the loanee was not a defaulter. However, we note the submission made by the W.A. NO. 2480/2009 2 learned counsel for the appellant that the question is whether on the crucial date, 31.12.2007, the writ petitioner was a defaulter in terms of Ext.P3. Since those aspects have not been canvassed before the learned Single Judge, we do not think that at the appellate stage this Court will be justified in adverting to such contentions. Faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is more worried as to whether the judgment would form a precedent. We do not find any basis for such a submission. It is certainly open to the Bank to take all available contentions at the appropriate stage in respect of the factual circumstances emerging in the case, including the contention that the loanee was not a defaulter as on the crucial date and this judgment need not and cannot be taken as a precedent since that contention is not adverted to in this case. Subject to the above clarification, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 2480/2009 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.2480/2009 JUDGMENT 6th November, 2009 W.A. NO. 2480/2009 4