IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16404 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SYAMALA T., D/O. THANKAKKA, MELEVILAKATH VEEDU, PULIMATH, VAMANAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER SRI.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R.), KSFE LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KSFE LTD., KALLARA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SMT.K.LEELA, AGED 55 YEARS, PALAYIL KARIYATH VEEDU, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SMT.RADHAMONY, U.D.CLERK, PANGODE PANCHAYATH, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SECRETARY, NELLANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH, VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R2 SRI.M.L.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16404 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a surety in a chitty transaction in which default has been committed in the repayment of dues. Admittedly, amount has become due on 20/9/2001 and the first requisition was made on 30/9/2005 even according to the respondents. Thereafter Ext.P1 demand was made on 14/3/2006. 2. Evidently, this is beyond the period of limitation provided for recovery of debts as is provided under the Limitation Act. However the learned counsel for the respondents submit that since by virtue of a notification issued under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act as the amount is recoverable by taking recourse to the said Act, the debt assumes the character of a debt due to the Government. According to him, for that reason, the period of 12 years is the period of limitation. 3. I am not in a position to accept this contention. It may be true that by a notification issued, recovery is permitted by taking recourse to the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. But that does not in any manner alter the nature of the dues nor does it mean that the dues of WPC 16404/08 :2 : the Company has been equated with the dues of the Government. 4. The position that time barred dues cannot be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act is settled by various decisions of this court including Annamma Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation (2002(2) KLT 834). Therefore, at the time when the requisition was made and Ext.P1 demand is issued, since the debt which became due on 20/9/2001 had already become time barred, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, Exts. P1 and P2 will stand quashed and the respondents are restrained from effecting continued recovery from the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp