HARIKUMARAN NAIR Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 prohibitory order issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner had joined a chit conducted by the first respondent company. According to the petitioner he was a subscriber in Chit No.1295/C 495 of 1971. According to him he had bid the chit in auction on 10-6-1977 for Rs.5,570/- He claims that he had paid the instalments due and the transaction was closed and the chitty terminated on.10-1-1980. According to the petitioner thereafter no amount was due from him towards the chit transaction. A notice Ext. P1 was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent company claiming that on verification of his account it was seen that he had not remitted 10 instalments of the chit amounting to Rs.1,000/- and claiming from him the said sum of Rs.1,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Another notice was sent to the petitioner on 19-2-1987 informing him that action will be taken against him for realisation of the defaulted amounts. According to the petitioner he issued a notice through his counsel pointing out that no amount was due from him and that in any event the claim was barred by limitation. The petitioner has not chosen to produce the copy of that notice to show that he had put forward a case that the claim was barred by limitation. The petitioner has produced the reply to this notice from the first respondent company as Ext. P2. The petitioner complains that there after Ext. P3 prohibitory order has been issued to his employer under the Revenue Recovery Act directing recovery of a sum of Rs.500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said prohibitory order dated 25-11-1988 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the claim of the first respondent as against him is barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground of attack raised by him on behalf of the petitioner is that the claim by the first respondent company as against the petitioner is barred by limitation. According to him the chitty terminated on 10-1-1980 and Ext. P1 demand was made only in the year 1986. He also points out that the prohibitory order under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued only on 25-11-1988. The petitioner's submission is that since the period for recovery of a debt is only three years, the claim of the first respondent company is barred by limitation. He seeks to contend that in the light of the decision reported in A.K. Nanu and others v. State of Kerala and others ( 1987 (2) KLT 921 ) Revenue Recovery Proceedings also cannot be initiated for recovery of a barred debt.

(3.) I am afraid that the contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner has produced no material before this court to show that the claim is barred by limitation. The petitioner has not even alleged that he has not executed any mortgage to secure the payment of the future instalments of the chit. He has also not produced the contract between the parties to prove the terms of the transaction. Ext. P2 reply notice served on the petitioner indicates that the petitioner had agreed to settle the liability. The chitty having terminated only on 10-1-1980 the respondent company could have 12 years to enforce the obligation of the petitioner if he had secured the future instalments payable by a mortgage as is usually done in such transactions. In the nature of the allegations contained in the Original Petition, and in the absence of the relevant materials, it is not possible to hold that the claim of respondent No.1 is barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be taken against him. Even if the ratio of the decision reported in 1987 (2) KLT 921 is applied to this case, since it is not shown that the claim is barred by limitation, the petitioner cannot get Ext. P3 order quashed in this proceeding.