IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28431 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- CHANDRU , W/O. KALLUVETTIL KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 54 YEARS, NAIKKANAL DESOM, TRICHUR TALUK TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE PUTHUR, SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 345, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PUTHUR, TRICHUR-14 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, CHUNGAM, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR-3 3. THE SALE OFFICER (A&E) INSPECTOR NO.4 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, CHUNGAM, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR-3 4. MOHANAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. DEVASWOM PARAMBIL KOCHUNNY, CHERUR DESOM, VILVATTOM VILLAGE,TRICHUR TALUK TRICHUR DISTRICT. 5. MUKESH, S/O. PADINJATEE KUTTAN PUTHOOR P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. 6. BINDU.,D/O. KALLADATHIL SUKUMARAN PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR TALUK. 7. WILSON, S/O. PODIYAN ANTHONI PUTHOOR DESOM, PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR TALUK. 8. SANTHOSH, S/O. KAKKANAD KOCHAKKAN PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR TALUK. WP(C).No. 28431 of 2008(I) 9. RAJEEV,S/O. VATTAPARAMBIL RAMAN PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR TALUK. 10. REKHA @ REMA, W/O. RAJEEV VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R2, R3 ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).28437 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.28431 and 28437 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Having regard to the nature of the orders being issued hereunder and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Adv.Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, who appears for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3, notice to respondents 4 to 10 is dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28431/2008 is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28437/2008. 3. The first respondent advanced a loan. The collateral security offerred for that loan was an item of property that belong to the petitioners. That was done by acting on the power of attorney of the petitioners. 4. Arbitration proceedings were initiated on account of default of the loan. All the defendants in those proceedings remain ex- W.P.(C) Nos.28431 & 28437 of 2008 - 2 - parte. The fact remains that the petitioners were not made parties to that arbitration. 5. The petitioners claim that power of attorney was misused. The transaction in favour of the bank was challenged by the petitioners before the Civil Court. However, the Civil Court took the view that the issue is one falling under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that a copy of that order was issued only a couple of days ago. We are not concerned with the correctness of that order, which may be subjected to different proceedings, at the instance of the petitioner. 6. Though the petitioners have raised different questions including the sustainability of the arbitration award and the transactions in favour of the first respondent bank, with the plea that the entire exercise was fraud practiced on the petitioners, I am not prepared to go into those issues at all, since it is inadvisable to extent the writ jurisdiction to adjudicate such issue and still further, such mixed question of facts and law, W.P.(C) Nos.28431 & 28437 of 2008 - 3 - which require adjudication on evidence, is a subject matter of proceedings already initiated before the Civil Court, as noticed above. To secure the interest of the petitioners, all that is now required, is that they have to be provided a protective order with a reasonable time to challenge the decision of the Civil Court holding that their suits are not maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, without entering on merits and leaving open all issues, this writ petition is ordered that the impugned sale shall stand deferred for a period of two months from today, without prejudice to the petitioners' rights and opportunity to move appropriate courts for orders including interlocutory, in relation to the suits instituted by them or to move appropriate statutory authority to set aside the awards or to raise claim. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/25/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.