IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 18029 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- EP.153/2007 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P. HYDERALI, S/O. MOHAMMED, KAPUKUTH POTTAMMAL, VARANGODE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 18029 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P1 and P6. Ext.P1 is the judgment in ARC No.238/2000 which is dated 30.12.2000. The facts led to Ext.P1 are as follows:- The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the Bank/ the respondent therein. The failure on the part of the petitioner in clearing the said liability arising out of the said loan transaction constrained the bank to resort to arbitration proceedings. In ARC No.238/2000 the petitioner was the first respondent. The sureties were also arrayed as defendants. In that the 3rd respondent contested the suit and ultimately, it was decreed as per Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1 it was held that the decree holder would be entitled to proceed with in accordance with law. Defendants one to five are liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,52,636/- along with further interest @ 20% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.5 lakhs with effect from 15.9.2000 together with future cost and incidental charges. The 3rd respondent who contested the suit did not prefer any appeal WPC.18029/2010 : 2 : against Ext.P1. Long later, the petitioner preferred a revision along with a petition to condone the delay of 9 years before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal against Ext.P1. After considering the petition to condone the delay, it was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order by the Tribunal. Ext.P6 would reveal that it was dismissed on the ground of delay. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the decision reported in Sarojiniamma V. Thiruvananthapuram District Co- operative Bank Ltd( 2005(3)KLT 655) was not correctly understood by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the the revision ought to have been filed within a period of 5 months and further that even for the delay of 9 years have not been specifically explained. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that in terms of the decision in Sarojiniamma's case the revision petition, if any, should have been preferred at least within 5 months, cannot be sustained at all. There is no specific order prescribing of such a period of limitation in the said decision. According to the learned counsel in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court observed therein that WPC.18029/2010 : 3 : the petitioner therein should have preferred the revision within 5 months. That cannot be a reason to treat that this Court made such a finding that in all cases the period of limitation for preferring a revision petition would be 5 months. In fact, a perusal of Sarojiniamma'a case would reveal that relying on decision reported in Padmanabha Pillai v. Narayana Pillai (1969KLJ 614) the impugned order therein was sustained. In the decision in 1969 KLJ 614 this Court held that even in the absence of legislative prescription as to the period of limitation certainly, it will be open to the revisional authority to decline to exercise its discretion when a party moves for the relief with long period of indiscreet delay. Of course, a scanning of the said decision would justify the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal that an outer limit of 5 months have never been fixed by this Court for the purpose of preferring a revision against an order passed under Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In fact, this Court held that it is up to the revisional authority to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in case the party moves it after a WPC.18029/2010 : 4 : period of indiscreet delay. In this case, admittedly, there is a delay of 9 years. In the absence of proper and sufficient explanation, the said delay can only be considered as an indiscriminate delay. The Tribunal, after perusing the affidavit accompanying the petition to condone the delay, observed that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Ext.P3 is the application submitted for condoning the delay along with the affidavit. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that except a vague statement that the petitioner had been in Chidambaram no other reasons have been assigned for the inordinate delay of 9 years. In the said circumstances, I cannot find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. In that view of the matter, Ext.P6 order invites no interference by this Court. In fact, going by the decision 1969 KLJ 614 which was relied on by 2005(3)KLT 655 it is up to the revisional authority to decide whether to decline or to exercise its discretionary power in case a party moves for relief after a long period of indiscreet delay. However, a scanning of Ext.P6 would reveal that though such a remark was made in Ext.P6, virtually, the WPC.18029/2010 : 5 : matter is decided on merits as well. The fact that the petitioner did not contest the suit and the fact that the petitioner had failed in discharging his burden to show that he had not actually received the amount, was also taken note. It is a decision taken based on facts. Correctness or otherwise of such factual findings cannot be gone into in this writ petition especially, in the absence of any material before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had not availed the loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent bank. In short, I find no reason at all to interfere with Ext.P6. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge