IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16844 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.MANOMANI, D/O.AMMUKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT MANOVIHAR, ESWARAMTHAMPY NAGAR, KALLAYM P.O., FROM KAMALABHAVAN HOUSE, MUKKOLAKKAL DESOM, KADAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OP. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY SECRETARY/ASST. REGISTRAR. 3. ARBITRATOR CUM-SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK, PEROORKADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP. SOCIETY NO.1412, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16844 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent Bank as early as on 22/10/1993. Default was committed leading to filing of Ext.P4 plaint for recovery of Rs.67,225/- from the petitioner. The matter was contested and the claim was decreed as per Ext.P5. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal to the 2nd respondent, and that was dismissed as per Ext.P7. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P7 and for consequential reliefs. 2. Before the Arbitrator and the Appellate Tribunal, defence put forward by the petitioner was that from 31/03/1994 to 05/07/1997, the Bank had taken on lease a building belonging to the petitioner. It is stated that initially, the rent was Rs.200/-, and later it was revised to Rs.900/-, and still later it was revised at Rs.1,250/-. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2 undertaking given by her, the Bank was authorised to appropriate the rent WP(C) No.16844/2009 -2- payable towards the loan liability that was due. It is stated that on this basis, he Bank has realised an amount of Rs.53,250/-. But, however, in the plaint failed, they have shown that they have only realised Rs.3153/-. Yet another contention that is now raised is that in addition to the rent that was appropriated, which has not been properly accounted, the petitioner has also made a payment of Rs.28800/- as per Ext.P9 series of receipts. It is stated that this amount is also not credited in the accounts. On this basis, the learned counsel contends that the amount shown in Ext.P5 and its confirmation in Ext.P7 is erroneous. 3. In so far as the appropriation of the rent is concerned, going by the pleading in this writ petition, the total amount that has been realised by the Bank is Rs.53,250/-. However, a reading of Ext.P5 decree shows that towards interest and principal arrears, the Bank has realised Rs.51,911/- and Rs.3,153/- respectively. These two figures would show that the Bank has accounted receipt of more than what the petitioner claims. If that be so, the case of the petitioner regarding the inaccuracy of the accounts in this respect cannot be accepted. WP(C) No.16844/2009 -3- 4. In so far as Ext.P9 receipts are concerned, a reading of Exts.P5 & P7 show that these documents were not produced before the Arbitrator or the appellate authority during the course of the proceedings. Yet another contention that is also raised before this Court is that a statement of account was not produced by the Bank. That also not seems to be factually correct, as the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of Ext.P7 order, refers to a statement of account, that was produced by the Bank. In the light of the above, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the concurrent findings against him as contained in Exts.P5 & P7. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing with the Bank for any instalment facility or for the benefit of OTS scheme or any other such scheme that is currently in force. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg