IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 26755 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NIZAMUDEEN H, NISAM MANSIL, MEENKARA DAM P.O., MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (THE CHIEF MANAGER ADB ALAPPUZHA), THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. MR.JOBY MATHEW, S/O KURIAN, ATTAYIL HOUSE, KALLUPARAMBU, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, SBI SRI.SAJI SANKARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 26755 OF 2007 I ===================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P1 Power of Attorney, he had availed two loans from the respondent Bank for Rs.10 lakh each. It is stated that the 4th respondent and some other officers of the Bank had fraudulently obtained signed papers from him and that utilizing those signed papers, had availed of 19 other loans, on which property covered by Ext.P1 has been given in security. Petitioner submits that he was totally unaware of this and that although he is willing to clear off the amount in default in the two loans that has been availed of by him, the Bank is not willing to exonerate him from the liability. He submits that Ext.P6 notice has been published by the Bank and that there is every likelihood of the Bank proceeding against the property for realising the entire debt by disposal of the WPC 26755/07 :2 : property covered by Ext.P1 Power of Attorney. 2. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by the counsel for the Bank that in 19 loan transactions, the petitioner has guaranteed payment and the property involved is also mortgaged. It is stated that in all papers for completing the procedure for loan transaction, there is signature of the petitioner. In so far as the involvement of the officers of the Bank is concerned, it is submitted that there are certain allegations and that include allegations of non compliance with the procedural formalities for extending the loan facilities to the borrower concerned. It is submitted that though a criminal case is pending, that does not by itself is no proof to conclude that the petitioner is a stranger to the transactions involved. 3. From the facts that have been projected by both sides, it is obvious that it involves determination of the question as to whether the petitioner is a party to the loan transaction, whether he has signed the documents and has availed of the loan and whether he has been defrauded as claimed. These are not issues which can be decided on the strength of affidavits. Necessarily, WPC 26755/07 :3 : evidence will have to be adduced by both sides and documents will have to be perused. This can be done only in original proceedings, for which Act has provided a remedy by providing appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In my view that is the remedy available to the petitioner and the writ petition is misconceived. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp