IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 2044 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.34519/2010 DATED 16.11.2010 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------ 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU, VELLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAYI P.O., PUDUKKAD. 2. MALLIKA, W/O.VIJAYAN, VELLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAYI P.O., PUDUKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KUTTIPURAM BRANCH, THRISSUR DIST. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA. R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2044 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by a conditional interim order dated 16th November, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.34519 of 2010. The writ petition itself is filed complaining the action of the respondents in resorting to the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of certain amounts which are admittedly borrowed by the appellants herein from the first respondent Bank. 2. In the writ petition the appellants are disputing the legality of the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings. They also submit that the exact amount due from the appellants is not yet quantified by the first respondent and therefore resort to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act is not legally permissible. 3. Whether the grounds of challenge raised by the appellants are tenable or not is a matter to be decided in the writ petition. It all depends on the establishment of the basic facts which can be ascertained only after the respondents entered their defence. During the pendency of the writ petition, by the order under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court directed the appellants herein to deposit certain amount and granted a stay W.A.No.2044 of 2010 - 2 - of all further steps under the Revenue Recovery Act. We do not see any reason to interfere with such an order. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the order passed in the writ appeal, the appellants may be given some more time to comply with the condition of the interim order. The appellants are therefore directed to comply with the condition stipulated by the learned Judge in the order under appeal by two weeks from today. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns