IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1501 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15755/2011 Dated 30/06/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. NAJUMA SALI, W/O K.M.SALI, AGED 46, 42/2252C, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE, NO. 2256 G, PROVIDENCE ROAD ERNAKULAM-18,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. K.M.SALI, S/O LATE K.A. MOHAMMED, AGED 54, 42/225 2C,ST.BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-18, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2256 G,PROVIDENCE ROAD,ERNAKULAM-18, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- VIJAYA BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VYTTILA BRANCH, KOCHI-19, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ADV. SMT.SALLY THOMAS CHACKO FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1501 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The appellants availed loan from the respondent-Bank as house building loan. However, it is contended by the respondent- Bank that the loan availed was for construction of a 35000 sq. ft. multi-storied building, which cannot obviously be called as a house. The Bank, therefore, treated the loan as a commercial loan charged higher rate of interest, against which the appellants have filed two suits said to be pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The Sub Court appears to have granted injunction against charging of higher interest during the pendency of the suit. However, no orders are passed by the Sub Court against recovery of interest already charged. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the excess interest charged so far. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere, because the dispute, if any, has to be settled before the Sub Court in the suit pending. It is against this judgment that the Writ Appeal is filed. WA.1501/11 2 2. After hearing both sides, we do not find any scope for this Court to consider appellants' challenge against the higher rate of interest charged for the loan. The interest is always linked to nature and type of loan and if the loan is commercial, naturally the interest applicable to the housing loan cannot be granted. In any case, since the appellants and the respondent-Bank are in civil court contesting the same issue, we leave it open to the appellants to raise all the contentions before the civil court. We are surprised to note that the Sub Court has not disposed of the suits in spite of the direction by the District Court to dispose of the same before 28.7.2011. In any case, we direct the Sub Court, Ernakulam to continuously post the suits and dispose of the same at the earliest and in any event, within three months from today. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above direction. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs