IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 523 of 2009(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2009 IN AS.111/2008 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.334/2006 ONT HE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 15.7.2008 .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- M.K.SASIDHARAN NAIR, `GOKULAM' NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR, MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.VIPIN NARAYAN MS.M.M.DEEPA RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------- THE FEDERAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VENGOOR, SRI.JOY K.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, VENGOOR. ADV. MR.A.ANTONY FOR R MS.LEELAMMA ANTONY FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.1.2009 in A.S.No.111 of 2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor, whereby the judgment passed by the learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor in O.S.No.334 of 2006 decreeing that suit for money was reversed. Plaintiff in the above suit is the revision petitioner. Admittedly, he borrowed a housing loan from the respondent/bank a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs. The loan amount being defaulted, the respondent/bank proceeded with steps for revenue recovery. When such proceedings were pending the plaintiff/defaulter entered into a compromise with the respondent/bank under the One Time Settlement scheme by which the bank agreed to close the loan transaction for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with revenue recovery commission of Rs.17,500/-, though the outstanding loan amount then was Rs.4,88,271/-. Pursuant to such settlement the plaintiff/defaulter remitted the amount in terms of settlement. After remitting such sum and C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 - O 2 closing the loan transaction at a time when the property was notified for auction by the revenue authorities, pursuant to steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act, petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.334 of 2006 as one for recovery of money alleging that the bank was not entitled to collect revenue recovery commission which was realised at 5% on the defaulted loan amount. Though the bank resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement the trial court on the basis of the materials produced passed a decree in terms of the suit claim in favour of the plaintiff allowing him to realise Rs.17,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation from the bank. Decision of the learned Munsiff was challenged by the bank preferring an appeal. In the appeal learned Sub Judge after appreciating the materials and hearing the counsel on both sides reversed the decision of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the suit. Propriety and correctness of that judgment of the learned Sub judge in appeal is challenged in the revision. 2. Respondent/bank has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 - O 3 3. Relying on Usha Mary v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Others [2009 (4) KHC 254(DB)] learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no collection charges can be realised by the bank for the reason that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated when the defaulter had tendered the outstanding defaulted loan amount in the bank. Merely because the process of Revenue Recovery Act had been initiated for realisation of the defaulted amount due to the bank, it is the submission of the counsel, collection charges apart from the interest and cost permitted by rules, cannot be realised from the defaulter. I am afraid the larger question to be considered in the present case is whether a suit at the instance of the revision petitioner challenging the realisation of the collection charges under the Revenue Recovery Act for having taken steps under the Revenue Recovery Act is maintainable or not. The outstanding loan amount as and when a settlement was reached with the bank, it is not disputed, was Rs.4,88,271/-. Having reached a settlement with the bank regarding the amount that has to be paid to the bank and agreeing to the terms settled that the C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 - O 4 reduced amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on the loan amount with the amount due as collection charges of Rs.17,500/- alone be paid , petitioner after remitting the amount has filed the present suit as if the bank had collected excess amount from him. He has no case the revenue recovery commission charges collected by the bank had not been transmitted to the revenue authorities for having taken steps under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the defaulted amount due to the bank. Once revenue recovery proceedings are initiated and steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act, that too to a stage where the property of the petitioner had been notified for sale to realise the amount due from the petitioner/defaulter he had entered into settlement with the bank in the manner indicated above unequivocally agreeing to pay the reduced amount of the loan with the revenue recovery collection charges. What the plaintiff has done by filing the suit is nothing but retracting from the solemn settlement arrived at with the bank setting forth a case that the amount of Rs.17,500/- collected as commission charges could not have been collected by the bank under the rules. If C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 - O 5 he had any challenge against the realisation of that amount he should have challenged the settlement reached with the bank by filing a proper suit. After enjoying the benefits of the settlement by which the outstanding amount was reduced by more than Rs.1,30,000/-, propriety and correctness of the bank in collecting revenue commission charges was impeached in the suit. On that solitary ground itself the suit claim should have been found merit less. So far as the decision rendered in Usha Mary's case, in the present case, its applicability has to be considered with reference to Sections 70 & 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act. When a claim is raised against a defaulter under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act payment or remittance of such claim to avoid drastic steps under the Act can be made under protest. After reaching a settlement at the stage when property of the petitioner was notified for auction under the Revenue Recovery Act, petitioner/plaintiff remitted the amount which was claimed by the bank as due as revenue recovery collection charges without any protest. In questioning the collection of that amount, no doubt, the challenge relates to the steps taken under C.R.P.No.523 of 2009 - O 6 the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the defaulted amount from the petitioner as well. When that be the case, the interdiction covered under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in entertaining any dispute thereof except on the ground of fraud also apply with full force. The present suit had been filed by the plaintiff as if a simple suit for money alleging that the respondent/bank had collected the amount due as revenue recovery commission without authority. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the decision rendered by the learned Sub Judge reversing the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff and dismissing his suit. Revision dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-