IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10517 of 2007(B) -------------------------------------- I.A.188/2007 IN OS.263/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.K. PRAKASAN, S/O.KUMARAN, SUNITHA BHAVAN, KOADAMTHURUTHU MURI, KUTHIATHODU P.O. BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, KUTHIATHODU BRANCH. BY ADV. MR.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10517/2007-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.263/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT CHERTHALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO.188/2007 IN O.S.263/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/01/2007 IN I.A. NO.188/2007 IN O.S.263/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2007 IN I.A. NO.188/2007 IN O.S.263/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/02/2003 ISSUED FROM THE HEAD OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10517 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P5. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction allowing I.A No.188/2007 in O.S No.263/2005 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. iii) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiffs in O.S No.263 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The above suit was one for settlement W.P.(C).No.10517 OF 2007 Page numbers of accounts and for other reliefs. Petitioner admittedly subscribed to a chitty conducted by the defendant, a State enterprise. The chitty to which he subscribed had a sala of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Under the scheme evolved by the defendant, loans of one half of the chitty amount was provided to the subscribers after making the required number of subscriptions in the chitties and subject to furnishing of security. Petitioner admittedly availed a loan on the chitty subscribed for a Sum of Rs.50,000/- furnishing security bonds of sureties apart from his own bond. Later, petitioner also prized the chitty for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Once the chitty is prized, the loan amount availed is liable to be adjusted on the prized chitty and accordingly, the petitioner also made a request thereof. The defendant has no objection to the request subject to satisfaction of the requirements in prizing the chitty amount furnishing the required security. Whereas the W.P.(C).No.10517 OF 2007 Page numbers petitioner wanted to treat the surety bonds and personal bond given by him earlier for the prized chitty amount, the defendant was not prepared to accept the security furnished earlier since the sureties had made themselves liable only for the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner, it is stated, thereafter defaulted in payment of future in the chitty. Petitioner preferred the above suit seeking a settlement of accounts contending that the defendant is liable to settle the accounts and also for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant who had resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement proceeded under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the outstanding dues on the chitty transaction from the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application for stay of the Revenue Recovery proceedings in the pending suit. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and W.P.(C).No.10517 OF 2007 Page numbers correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P6 order and also the other materials produced with the writ petition, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff challenged in the writ petition. I refrain from expressing any opinion on the entitlement of a subscriber to a chitty to sue the foreman for settlement of accounts, which needless to point out has to be considered by the trial court in the trial of the suit. A suit for settlement of accounts will lie only when the relationship between the parties are such that demands one party to account to the W.P.(C).No.10517 OF 2007 Page numbers other. Whatever that be, in the present writ petition, the challenge canvassed is against the declining of a discretionary relief by the petitioner/plaintiff to restrain the defendant from proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act during the pendency of the suit to realise the dues allegedly outstanding from him under the chitty transaction. On the facts and circumstances presented, Ext.P6 order passed by the court below declining that discretionary relief cannot be found fault with. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv