ADAT FARMERS CO OP BANK LTD Vs. KLDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to the judgment and decree passed by the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur in O.S. No.1469 of 2008. That is a suit filed by petitioner for recovery of money for the work allegedly done by it. Previously petitioner had tried its luck by filing W.P(C) No.17155 of 2006 against respondents for recovery of the amount. But this Court by judgment dated 10.08.2007 relegated the parties to civil court. It is accordingly that petitioner filed the suit. Respondents raised a plea of limitation among other things while resisting the suit. Learned Sub Judge raised an issue whether the suit claim is time barred. Learned Sub Judge vide the impugned judgment dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. Grievance of petitioner is that though a plea of limitation was raised in the written statement no such argument was advanced at the time of hearing and learned Sub Judge without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the contention regarding limitation dismissed the suit on that ground. That according to the learned counsel is illegal and without jurisdiction which is amenable to the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) I am afraid, I cannot agree with the argument of learned counsel. It is not disputed that respondents have raised a plea of limitation in the written statement. Paragraph 8 of the judgment under challenge states so. Even if there was no such plea the court could consider question of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Here respondents raised a plea of limitation and an issue also was raised. When the issue was raised, learned Sub Judge had to answer it. Learned Sub Judge answered the issue in favour of the respondents. That judgment is subject to an appeal as provided under law. When a statutory remedy is provided a party cannot take recourse to the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. May be, if gross injustice is done by the court for no fault of the party, he could approach this Court requesting to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Here respondents have taken up a plea of limitation, an issue was raised in that regard and that issue is answered by the learned Sub Judge. I do not find justifiable reason to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction. Remedy open to the petitioner is to file appeal against the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that if an appeal is to be filed there, will be a delay of about two weeks. It is open to the petitioner to seek exclusion/condonation of the period during which this proceeding was pending in this Court. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to file appeal, this Original Petition is dismissed.