IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 9988 of 2008(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.N.VENUGOPAL,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,ASWATHI NIVAS,THIRUVALLOOR, ALANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,K.S.F.E OFFICE, BHADRATA,MUSUEM ROAD,THRISSUR-20. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 9988 OF 2008 - L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Recovery proceedings against the petitioner is under challenge. Petitioner submits that he has been cheated by one Santhosh and as a result thereof he has been made liable for amounts that are due to the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that on receipt of Ext. P2 demand notice, representations were made to the respondents informing them about the fraud played on them. According to him despite the above, the 2nd respondent has issued Exts. P4 and P5 the prohibitory orders and this writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings. 2. If as stated by the petitioner he has a case that he has been cheated by a third party, that is a factual question that is to be established by the petitioner in the proceedings in which the person who has allegedly cheated him is also a party. In my view, this can be established only in a civil suit and such a plea as now raised by W.P.(C) No. 9988 OF 2008 -2- the petitioner cannot be agitated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in the light of the above factual position. 3. Petitioner now submits that in effecting recovery, the limits placed by Section 60 of the CPC have not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of this Court in Bhargavan Pillai v. Special Dy. Tahsildar {2003(3) KLT 753}. On a reading of the writ petition I notice that this is not an aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition. If according to the petitioner, in effecting recovery respondents have not complied with the requirements of Section 60 it is upto the petitioner to take up the matter with the respondents who shall consider the same. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-