IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 677 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.204/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.ASHOK BHAT, S/O.LATE K.KESHAVA BHAT. 2. G.PURUSHOTHAMA BHAT, S/O.LATE SHRI.K.KESHAVA BHAT, BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VIJAYA BANK, KUMBLA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.V.RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.677 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to passing of the order Ext.P6 and to set aside the same by allowing I.A.No.1965/09 in O.S.No.204/2009 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.204 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. Suit is one for recovery of money and the respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent, a nationalised bank filed the above suit for the amount due from the petitioners/defendants over an over draft facility provided to them on the hypothecation of WPC.677/10 2 their stocks in trade. Petitioners/defendants moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11 of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the 'FDRC Act', for staying of the suit contending that they have moved an application before the Commission under the above Act claiming to be distressed farmers entitled to the benefits covered by the Act. The respondent bank resisted the application filing objections. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application for stay vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondent bank has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge against the order is confined only on the right conferred on the petitioners under Section 11 of the FDRC Act. Inviting my attention to Section 11 of the FDRC Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when their applications are pending for consideration before the Commission, the suit is WPC.677/10 3 liable to be stayed especially when Kasaragod District within whose jurisdiction cause of auction for instituting the suit has arisen, has been declared as a distress affected area under the above Act. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the counsel. Right of the plaintiff bank to institute the suit for realisation of the debt due from the petitioners/defendants, it appears, is in no way barred by any provisions under the FDRC Act. It is for the Commission to make recommendations subject to the merit of the application moved by a farmer covered under the Act; and at any rate till that recommendation is accepted by the Government, it cannot bar a claim for recovery of the debt. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request for stay canvassed by the petitioners/defendants in the suit. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp