K C MATHEW Vs. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT. P1 award rendered in ARC No. 318/2005 and Ext. P2 rendered by the Co-operative Tribunal in A. P. No. 20/2007 confirming Ext. P1 are under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent filed the case in question on the ground that he was the surety for a loan availed of by the petitioner, and that he discharged the liability due to the Bank in order to avoid the proceedings for his disqualification, he being an office bearer of the Society.

(3.) BY Ext. P1, the plaint was decreed, and by Ext. P2, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. The defence put up by the petitioner was that he had not availed of any loan with the 3rd respondent as its surety, and that if at all, his signatures were forged by the 3rd respondent. This allegation of the petitioner has been rejected concurrently by both the authorities. A reading of paragraphs 9 and 10 of Ext. P2 itself speaks about the manner in which the case was contested on behalf of the petitioner. No evidence strong enough to prove that the documents forged was produced by the petitioner and no attempt was made to prove that the loan was not availed of. In such circumstances, the plea now raised that the petitioner be given yet another opportunity to prove the forged nature of Exts. X1 to X3 before the Arbitrator does not merit acceptance. Having regard to the concurrent findings of facts reflected in the impugned order, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with Exts. P1 and P2. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.