IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 OP.No. 9424 of 2003(V) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VARGHESE FRANCIS, MOONJAPALLY HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.SHAJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -11. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANALLUR VILLAGE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI. 3. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI REPORESENTED BY ITS BRANCH SENIOR MANAGER BY SP;. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVENUE) ADV. MR. P. SOYUS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 9424 of 2003(V) ORDER ON C.M.P.No. 16424 of 2003 IN O.P. 9424 OF 2003 DISMISSED. 20.10.2011 SD/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.6.1999 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17.1.2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. O.P.No.9424 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th October , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the third respondent Bank in the course of realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had availed a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the third respondent on 26.10.1995 depositing 350 shares of M/s Parrys Confectionary Ltd having a face value of Rs.3500/- and allegedly having a market value of Rs.1,35,000/-, as security for the loan, as revealed from Ext. P1 letter issued by the Bank. The petitioner could not satisfy the liability because of some unforeseen circumstances and nothing prevented the Bank from proceeding against the security furnished by the petitioner and to have the due amount realised accordingly. O.P.No.9424 OF 2003 2 3. Quite after several years, the petitioner has been confronted with the revenue recovery proceedings by serving Ext. P3 notice dated 17.01.2003, which made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the same on different heads, including the bar of limitation. 4. The third respondent/Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner is not correct or sustainable; that the petitioner has given acceptance of debt by signing the balance confirmation letter on 06.12.2000; that the requisition for R.R. Proceedings was made on 13.11.2002 and that the proceedings are well within the time. Some other contentions are also raised. 5. The specific case of the petitioner is that the loan was availed in the year 1995 and that, after April 1998, no confirmation whatsoever was ever effected by the petitioner in relation to the debt. It is contended that the debt has already become time-barred which cannot be got realised by invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point. Even though there O.P.No.9424 OF 2003 3 is a contention for the Bank in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner had signed the balance confirmation letter on 06.12.2000, acknowledging the debt, no proof has been produced by the Bank inspite of the fact that the Bank happens to be the custodian of that letter stated as given by the petitioner. In the absence of any proof in support of the said contention, the same can only be treated as a bald one and cannot be accepted or acted upon. Since the averment made by the petitioner that he has not executed any letter of confirmation after April 1998, is not successfully controverted from the part of the Bank by producing requisite material, if any, there is no other alternative for this Court but to draw an adverse inference and to hold it against the Bank that the debt has already become time-barred. 6. Coming to the issue whether the 'time-barred' debt can be enforced by resorting to the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act, the law stands declared as per the decision in 1999 (2) KLT 146 (State of Kerala vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty) holding it in the negative. O.P.No.9424 OF 2003 4 7. In the said circumstance, this Court declares that the respondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext. P3 Revenue Recovery proceedings. Ext. P3 is set aside and the Original Petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk O.P.No.9424 OF 2003 5 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... O.P. No. 9424 OF 2003 ................................................... Dated this the 20th October, 2011 J U D G M E N T