IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9216 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MATHAI JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, PRASANTH BHAVAN, P.O.MULAYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.R.AYYAPPAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MADAMBY HOUSE, MULAYAM VILLAGE, VALAKKAV, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. NADATHARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3499, P.O.NADATHARA, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN FOR R1 SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 BY GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.9216/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 A true copy of the notice dated nil issued by the 1st respondent. Ext.P2 A true copy of the lawyer notice dated 22-12-2003 issued by the petitioner. Ext.P3 A true copy of the reply notice dated 29-01-2004 issued by the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 A true copy of the lawyer notice dated 19-4-2004 issued by the petitioner. Ext.P5 A true copy of the petition filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6 A true copy of the letter dated nil issued by the 1st respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Ext.R1(a) True copy of the Award dated 9-5-2000 passed by the Arbitrator in A.R.C.No.3315/1998. // True copy // P.A. to Judge. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 9216 OF 2008(V) -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner admittedly has a brother Baby @ Antony. Thresiamma is their mother. Petitioner approached this Court by saying that the first respondent appears to hold out persistent demand notices as if the petitioner had availed a loan from it. His case is that he had not even availed membership in the first respondent bank. Petitioner admits that he had given power of attorney to Rappai, his brother-in-law. He moved this Court showing that Ext.P3 notice on behalf of the bank was issued referring to certain legal proceedings, however, without disclosing the identity of those proceedings. This Court then issued an interim order on 19-3-2008 calling upon the bank to place on record the material forming the basis of that statement in Ext.P3. Along with its Statement, first respondent bank has placed Ext.R1 (a) which is an award passed on 9-5-2000 by an Arbitrator which, W.P.(C) No.9216/2008 - 2 - among other things, shows that the petitioner, his brother Baby @ Antony and their mother Thresiamma were defendants in ARC No.3315/1998. It also shows that Baby @ Antony and Thresiamma had created documents in favour of the bank by pledging the properties. 2. In the aforesaid situations, the assertion of the petitioner is that he had never been a member of the society and had not availed a loan. His further case is that the property belongs to him also. These are not the issues which need to be adjudicated in this jurisdiction. But, at the same time, the records of the case show that the petitioner had been making attempts to find out, at least, the case number of the arbitration proceedings or other legal proceedings about which it was stated in Ext.P3. I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner requires an opportunity of hearing, on the basis of records of the transaction which ought to be available with the bank or the Arbitrator as the case may be. Under the aforesaid circumstances, while not interfering with the impugned proceedings and leaving open all contentions, it W.P.(C) No.9216/2008 - 3 - is directed that if the petitioner files revision under Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before the Co- operative Tribunal, the same would be entertained and considered for disposal on merit, in spite of the delay by treating the case as an exceptional one. Second respondent is directed to issue a certified copy of the aforesaid award within two weeks, if the petitioner applies for such a copy. If the petitioner files a revision within a further period of three weeks, the same will be considered for disposal on merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the first respondent. The Tribunal will make an endeavor to expedite the final disposal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/11/6/08 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.