IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15664 of 2005(M)
1. J. SOMAN, S/O. JOHNSON NADAR,
... Petitioner
2. PHILOMINA W/O. J. SOMAN, DO. DO.
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE
3. THE SPECIAL SALES OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) NO. 15664 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The challenge made by the petitioners in this writ petition is against the
revenue recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P6 and P6 (i) notices issued
by the third respondent Special Sales Officer. Petitioner joined chitty with
the second respondent, four in numbers for Rs. 1,00,000/- each, totally
amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs. According to the petitioners, they could avail a lone
up to half of the chitty amount and hence they availed an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- by way of loan from two chits and another loan amounting to Rs.
85,000/- by offering 50 cents of land towards security. When repayment was
defaulted, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the third
respondent. Hence they approached this court by filing this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioners they paid more than Rs. 40,000/- in the
chitty but that amount was not deducted and no details are furnished though
request was made in this behalf. Therefore, the dispute is only regarding the
non adjustment of Rs. 40,000/- if at all the same is said to have been paid by
the petitioner. Interim stay was granted on condition to pay Rs. 15,000/-
within one month from 25.5.2005. Neither side is able to tell this court as to WP(C) 15664/2005 :2:
whether the said condition has been complied with or not. At any rate, two
months period has already expired and there was no further extension of the
stay. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala
State Financial Enterprises that subsequently, the matter was agreed to be
settled by paying the balance amount within a period of six months as per the
understanding reached before the Adalath. Even that agreement was not
complied with by the petitioners, it is stated. However, the question as to
what is the actual amount due and payable by the petitioners is nothing but an
exercise of quantifying the amount due under the chitty transactions. This
court normally will not entertain such writ petitions as the adjudication of
such money dispute is primarily to be done by the civil court unless it be a
case where such adjudication is possible based on documentary evidence
produced. Except the bare allegation made in the writ petition, there is no
materials placed on records to show what is the actual amount due and
payable by the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, leaving open the right of the petitioner to
agitate his claim, if any, before a competent civil court if lis is still alive, this
writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN,
JUDGE.
KNC/-