IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32592 of 2007(E)
1. M.J.CHACKO, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALA BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. JOSE EUGINE, S/O.JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PREMOD
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :06/11/2007
O R D E R
V. GIRI ,J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO.32592 of 2007
---------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, he purchased two standing timbers
(Anjili trees) under Ext.P1 agreement for sale from the owner – the
second respondent. Trees were standing in the land comprised in
Sy.Nos.341/3, 341/9 and 341/14 of the Ettumanoor Village. According
to the petitioner, though one of the standing timbers was removed by
him from the property, the other had remained there, from 2004
because the petitioner was searching for appropriate purchasers. In
the meanwhile the first respondent Bank initiated proceedings against
the second respondent under the Securatisation Act. Property where
the timber stands along with other properties were attached and the
Bank has taken possession of the same. The petitioner prays that the
timber in question should be released to him, if necessary on a bond
executed by him agreeing to make good any loss which the Bank may
suffer, if it finds that it is unable to realise the entire amount due to it
from the second respondent.
2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the first
respondent also. In my view, this writ petition is misconceived.
Essentially what is sought for by the petitioner from this Court is an
W.P.(C)32592/2007 2
adjudication on the correctness of Ext.P1 as also the question as to
whether the petitioner is actually the owner of the tree which was
standing in the property of the defaulter. Such an adjudication would
involve a determination of disputed questions of fact also. Learned
counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner has a remedy before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He may have a remedy before the Civil
Court also. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed giving
liberty to the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the
Civil court, if permissible and if so advised.
V. GIRI, JUDGE
css/