IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 18519 of 2002(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- CICY SABU, WIFE OF SABU V. JOSE, MUNDAKKALL HOUSE, VAZHOOR EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3576, KOORALI P.O., KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 31519/2002 IN OP NO. 18519/2002 D. DISMISSED 17/01/2008. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10/3/99 IN ARC NO. 54/98 OF THE R2. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 16/08/99 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPLY SENT TO EXT.P2 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1 DT. 8/09/99. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 24/6/2002 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1. COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION OF PETITIONER DT. 4/11/95. EXT.R2. COPY OF THE DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE EXECUTED BY PETITIONER. EXT.R3. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TOWARDS R1 LOAN. EXT.R4. COPY OF THE VENGADA PATHRAM EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5. COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED DT. 27/10/95. EXT.R6. COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ON 28/10/96. EXT.R7. COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DT. 28/10/96. EXT.R8. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.R9. COPY OF THE VOUCHER DT. 28/10/96. EXT.R10. COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS EXTRACT OF THE PETITIONER IN A/C. NO. 3/1996- 97. EXT.R11. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR IN ARC NO. 54/98. True copy tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.18519 OF 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a member of the first respondent co-operative Bank. She had availed certain loans. The controversy between the parties is as to whether some of the transactions, on the ground of which she is being mulcted with liability, are genuine transactions. It appears to be the contention of the petitioner that some of the documents relied on by the Bank are not those executed by her and still further, that there is fabrication of documents. Though this writ petition is admitted on 5.7.2002, I do not deem it possible or appropriate for this Court to enter on an adjudication of the disputed questions on the basis of the assertions in the counter affidavit and the contra averments in the writ petition. It would also be not fair and reasonable to non- suit the petitioner without appropriate enquiry into her allegations. Within the framework of the Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner has adequate remedy by recourse to OP.18519/02 Page numbers arbitration, even if there is a bar of proceedings before the civil court by virtue of that Statute. I am satisfied that the institution of this writ petition and its continued pendency before this Court at the instance of the petitioner was bonafide and she had been bonafide prosecuting this litigation. In the aforesaid circumstances, leaving open all the questions raised in this writ petition, the petitioner is granted liberty and leave to sue the first respondent before the competent arbitrator following the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and any order or decision by the second respondent interfering with such proceedings would stand nullified by the force of this judgment. It is directed that if the petitioner files an arbitration case within an outer limit of three weeks from now, the arbitrator will consider the same ignoring the delay during the pendency of this writ petition. A final decision shall be taken after hearing the necessary parties within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the institution of the OP.18519/02 Page numbers arbitration case, whichever is latter. It is also clarified that all contentions of the first respondent are also left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. OP.18519/02 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.18519 OF 2002 JUDGMENT 17TH JANUARY, 2008. =======================