IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9460 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.RAVEENDRANATH, SAROJINI VIHAR, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), ADV. SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN), ADV. SMT.SMITHA GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE JUNIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM, THE SPEICAL SALE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED). 3. THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK NO. 421,KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.9460 of 2008-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Having regard to the nature of the directions being issued hereunder, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with preserving its right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.The petitioner faced arbitration proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Ext.P1 shows that though the petitioner had appeared before the Arbitrator, no written statement was filed. That ultimately led to Ext.P1 award being issued on 25th October, 2004. WP(C)9460/08 -: 2 :- The contention of the petitioner is that he had entrusted a prominent Advocate to file an appeal/revision before the Co-operative Tribunal, however that it was not properly and appropriately filed and that the learned Advocate, thereafter, passed away and his son, who is also a practising Advocate, had advised that an appeal is being properly filed. According to the petitioner, it ultimately turned out that the appeal was not filed in time and that the matter is yet to be entertained by the Co-operative Tribunal. 3.Having considered the writ petition, I do not find any ground on which the petitioner refutes having availed the loan. He also does not have any contention of discharge or partial discharge, going by the pleadings in the writ petition. I am not inclined to grant any order interdicting proceedings in execution, particularly when, in the absence of any interlocutory order by the appellate or revisional authority, it is legally sustainable to have execution proceedings. Not WP(C)9460/08 -: 3 :- only that, even if an award is executed and an appeal or revision is, thereafter, allowed as against the award, the petitioner will have remedy by way of restitution. 4.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioner remits the entire amounts covered by the execution proceedings in six equal monthly instalments payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from March, 2008, there shall be no distress action on the basis of the award in question. It is further directed that the directions contained herein will be subject to any decision of the Co-operative Tribunal, if rendered in favour of the petitioner on the appeal/revision before it or which may be filed before it. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/