Remanded

Saneesh J v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC19 May 2016WP(C)/11234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that determining if a letter of guarantee is forged is a pure question of fact requiring evidence, beyond the scope of Article 226. It directed the petitioner to approach the civil court for redress and kept revenue proceedings in abeyance for thirty days.

What did the court decide?

To keep Ext.P1 proceedings in abeyance for thirty days to enable the petitioner to move the civil court for redressal.

Saneesh J Vs the Tahsildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11234 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SANEESH J., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE JAYAPALAN, KUREEKODU VILLAGE, NEAR M.G.P SCHOOL, THIRUVAMAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.ANISH PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM P.O, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUREEKODU VILLAGE OFFICE, ERUVELY, CHOTTANIKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 011.

¶12

3. UNION BANK OF INDIA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, IRUMPANAM BRANCH, IRUMPANAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 309.

¶14

4. SUNI K.A., S/O. K.M.ABDUL KAREE, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 315.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

WP(C).No. 11234 of 2016 (D)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 23.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 20.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 21.3.2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 11234 of 2016

¶32

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings

¶35

issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The said proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent bank on the basis that he is a guarantor to a loan of Rs.50,000/- availed by the fourth respondent from them and that the loan outstanding has not been paid either by the fourth respondent or by the petitioner when demanded. According to the petitioner, he never stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by the fourth respondent from the third respondent Bank and that the agreement of guarantee relied on by the third respondent Bank is a forged document. Ext.R3(B) is the letter of

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 11234 of 2016 -2-

¶37

guarantee relied on by the third respondent Bank to substantiate their contention that the petitioner is a guarantor to the loan transaction. The third respondent Bank also relies on Ext.R3(C) credit information furnished by the petitioner to reinforce their contention that the petitioner is a guarantor to the loan transaction referred to above.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Bank.

¶39

As indicated above, the issue to be resolved in this case is as to whether Ext.R3(B) letter of guarantee relied on by the third respondent Bank is a forged one. This is a pure question of fact which can be resolved only after letting the

¶40

W.P.(C).No. 11234 of 2016 -3-

¶41

parties to adduce evidence. This exercise cannot be

¶42

undertaken by this Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, according to me, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.

¶43

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievances. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to keep in abeyance Ext.P1 proceedings for a period of thirty days to enable the petitioner to move the civil court for the relief.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶46

bpr

Saneesh J v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saneesh J v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tintu Thomas Vs the Passport Officer

Subran K.K. Vs the District Collector, Thrissur

Marykutty Thomas Vs Union of India

Anu M.S. Vs District Collector

Y.Shajahan Vs Union of India

George Augustine Vs the District Collector