IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15664 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. J. SOMAN, S/O. JOHNSON NADAR, PERAYAM THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, THERIYAM VILLAGE PALOD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PHILOMINA W/O. J. SOMAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) SMT.V.A.GANGUJA SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER R.R. REGD.OFFICE, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, THRISSUR-680 0020. 2. THE MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., PETTAH BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL SALES OFFICER, SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NO.I, R.R. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 15664/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FORM II NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27.11.2000. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF FORM 10 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATE NIL. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM 10 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED N IL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.12.2004 ISSUED BY MANAGER, REVENUE RECOVERY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.4.2005 ISSUED BY MANAGER (REVENUE RECOVERY) TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF FORM 16 NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 3.3.2005 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF FORM 16 NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 3.3.2005 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 15664 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge made by the petitioners in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P6 and P6 (i) notices issued by the third respondent Special Sales Officer. Petitioner joined chitty with the second respondent, four in numbers for Rs. 1,00,000/- each, totally amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs. According to the petitioners, they could avail a lone up to half of the chitty amount and hence they availed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of loan from two chits and another loan amounting to Rs. 85,000/- by offering 50 cents of land towards security. When repayment was defaulted, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the third respondent. Hence they approached this court by filing this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioners they paid more than Rs. 40,000/- in the chitty but that amount was not deducted and no details are furnished though request was made in this behalf. Therefore, the dispute is only regarding the non adjustment of Rs. 40,000/- if at all the same is said to have been paid by the petitioner. Interim stay was granted on condition to pay Rs. 15,000/- within one month from 25.5.2005. Neither side is able to tell this court as to WP(C) 15664/2005 :2: whether the said condition has been complied with or not. At any rate, two months period has already expired and there was no further extension of the stay. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Financial Enterprises that subsequently, the matter was agreed to be settled by paying the balance amount within a period of six months as per the understanding reached before the Adalath. Even that agreement was not complied with by the petitioners, it is stated. However, the question as to what is the actual amount due and payable by the petitioners is nothing but an exercise of quantifying the amount due under the chitty transactions. This court normally will not entertain such writ petitions as the adjudication of such money dispute is primarily to be done by the civil court unless it be a case where such adjudication is possible based on documentary evidence produced. Except the bare allegation made in the writ petition, there is no materials placed on records to show what is the actual amount due and payable by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, leaving open the right of the petitioner to agitate his claim, if any, before a competent civil court if lis is still alive, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. KNC/-