Dismissed

Joy Joseph v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC9 Nov 2009WP(C)/31142/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders dismissing his application to prosecute the respondent bank for forgery and his request for expert examination of disputed loan documents. The court held the prosecution application was appealable under Section 341 CrPC and the other order could be challenged in a suit appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is closed as the challenged orders are determinable by appeal under Section 341 CrPC.

Joy Joseph Vs State Bank of Travancore — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 31142 of 2009(O)

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.864/2009,865/09 IN OS.56/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

JOY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 47, THULLUSSERIL VEEDU, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KUMARANALLOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

ADV. SRI. R.S KALKURA FOR SBT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).No.31142 OF 2009

¶17

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of November 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Writ petition is filed by the defendant in

¶21

O.S No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court,

¶22

Ettumanoor. The above suit was filed by the respondent a scheduled bank for recovery of the loan extended to the first defendant, which was secured by documents excuted by him and also the other defendants. Resisting the suit claim, petitioner/first defendant had contended that the revival letters of the loan transaction produced by the respondent/plaintiff bank were forged and fabricated. Petitioner had applied for sending over those documents for examination by a scientific expert. He had also moved an application for prosecuting the respondent bank for production of the forged documents. Both those

¶23

W.P.(C).No.31142 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶24

applications were dismissed by separate orders and the suit after trial was decreed in favour of the respondent bank. Orders dismissing the aforesaid applications moved by the petitioner/first defendant, it is submitted, were passed on the same day when the suit was decreed. Challenge canvassed in the writ petition is against the propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the court below in dismissing the applications moved by the petitioner/first defendant for taking prosecution proceedings against the respondent bank and also rejection of his request for sending over the documents, which are stated to be forged, to a scientific expert for examination.

¶25

2. First respondent bank has entered

¶26

appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented,

¶27

W.P.(C).No.31142 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶28

I find, the order passed by the court below on the application moved by the petitioner to prosecute the respondent bank in respect of some documents produced before the court on the allegation that such documents had been forged is amenable to an appeal as provided under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the order passed in the other application declining the request of the petitioner for sending over the documents to a scientific expert for examination, if such application was moved in support of the contentions raised in the suit then the correctness of the order thereof has to be challenged in appeal from the decree passed in the suit. On the other hand, if the order had been passed in relation to the application moved for prosecution of the respondent indicated above, then also the correctness of the order declining the request for sending over the documents to scientific expert can be canvassed by

¶29

W.P.(C).No.31142 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶30

the petitioner in the appeal which can be preferred

¶31

as under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In any view of the matter, a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impeach the propriety and correctness of the orders mentioned above is not entertainable. Writ

¶32

petition is therefore closed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

¶37

vdv

Joy Joseph v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Joseph v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Viswanathan Vs Thanka

Omanakuttan Vs Ramachandran Pilla & Others

Sheaine.P. Vs Ravi

C.Mohandas Vs Kamaladevi

Achuthan Nair Vs Mohandas

Kanakamma Vs N.Raveendranathan