IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22813 of 2008(N) -------------------------- EP 119/06 IN ARC.234/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- M.SUKUMARAN, S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, MULLANKARA HOUSE, KADAMBUR P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SHRI K. JANARDHANAN, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, PALAVILAYIL VEEDU, NEERAVIL, PERUBAD O.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHRI. JOSE BENCHAMIN, L.D.CLERK, ALANELLUR HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKADU TALUK. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRCT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OTTAPALAM/ARBITRATOR, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALAKKAD. R4 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22813 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the first defendant in an arbitration proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, by the first respondent, who stood as surety for a transaction, under which, the petitioner had availed a loan from a co-operative society. The surety was proceeded against and faced with distress action, he alleges that he had paid all the amounts in instalments. This is proved by the materials on record. Petitioner, as the first defendant, set up a version that there was an attempt to settle the transaction and thereby the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, had obtained certain funds. This was not established before the arbitration court, particularly because the writ petitioner did not adduce any evidence. That award has merged in the revisional order at the hands of the Co-operative Tribunal. Such questions of facts cannot be challenged before this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.29/7.