ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Kerala Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 645 of 1997. The facts in brief are that the Respondent/Complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 16,000/- by the Petitioner herein and the entire amount was credited to his Saving Bank Account. According to the Complainant he withdrew, at the first instance, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and another sum of Rs. 5,000/-. He wanted to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- for erecting the shed. The Bank did not permit him to withdraw the amount of balance of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in fact, it seized that amount. The contention of the Bank was that the Respondent had failed to utilise the full loan amount and, they, after monitoring the working of the account, had decided to recover their dues and thereafter, withheld the amount which was lying to the party’s credit in its Savings Bank Account. No notice to recall the loan or intention to recall has been brought to our notice nor was placed before the State Commission. No provision of law has been cited whereby the money lying to the credit of a party could be recovered by the Bank from the account of the party without recalling the loan. The question of exercising any right under Section 171 of the Contract Act could arise only if the amount had been recalled and had become due and repayable to the Bank. But, in the absence of such recall the loan amount had not yet bene repayable, therefore, there could be no question of exercise of any bankers lien. In our opinion, the plea of the Bank of exercise of bankers lien appears to be an after though because this plea is neither raised in the written version before the District Forum nor was taken at the hearing, though it was urged before the State Commission for the first time and was rightly rejected, as this was not the plea that the Bank had taken at any point earlier. No special contract is pleaded or is brought to our notice which enabled the Petitioner to seized the amount without even recalling the loan. We, therefore, in the light of such facts do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.