IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29694 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GEENY FRANCIS, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.FRANCIS GEROGE, METHAKATH HOUSE, THOPPUMPADI VILLAGE, KOCHI BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & DY REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, VASUDEVA BUILDING, T.D.ROAD,ERNAKULAM-682011 2. THE MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003 3. K.V.VIKAS, S/O.VIJAYAN KATTIHTARA HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, VEDAKKUMMURIYIL, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI-682005 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC., BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 29694/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD 28/4/2007 EXECUTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUCTION DTD 3/1/2008 IN IA. NO. 10/2008 IN OS NO.3/2008 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, COCHIN-5 P3: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OS.NO.3/2008 DATED 25/8/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOCHI. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 23/7/2009 OF THE IST RESPONDENT P5: COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT FORM NO.7.A DTD 7/7/2006 WITH SCHEDULE ATTACHED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29694 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, based on an agreement with the 3rd respondent, she was put in possession of a property. Ext.P1 is the agreement and petitioner submits that based on the said agreement, she had deposited an amount of `3,00,000 with the 3rd respondent. The property was mortgaged to respondents 1 and 2 and to realise their dues, Bank proceeded against the property and ultimately the property itself was sold. The case of the petitioner, who was also evicted from the property is that, from out of the sale proceeds that is available with the Bank, `3,00,000/- should be ordered to be refunded to her. 2. In my view, this purely is a monetary claim, which the petitioner has against the 3rd respondent and if at all it is the case of the petitioner that the Bank has excess amounts available with it, it is a civil dispute and the adjudication of which can be done only in a Civil Court. Therefore, petitioner has not made out a case for interference in a writ petition. WPC No. 29694/11 :2 : Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies before the Civil Court, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp