Ramachandran, J.

A public sector bank has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved about the judgment dated 07-01-2005 rendered in O.P.No.5184 of 2001. The bank was the 4th respondent therein, and had advanced a loan to the petitioner in the Original Petition (Ist respondent herein). When the repayment was not forthcoming, they had filed a suit and obtained a decree on 20-05-1989. E.P.No.95 of 1991 thereafter had been filed and it is pending before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner thereafter. A copy of the notice issued in the year 2001 shows the amount of arrears as Rs.3,44,021/-, which is produced as Ext.P2.

2. Such proceedings had been subjected to challenge by the petitioner, contending that after obtaining a decree it was impermissible to proceed with fresh steps of revenue recovery. It was also argued that the bank loan was time barred to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore the proceedings were to be interdicted.

3. Adverting to the judgment in State Bank of India v. Kuttappan [1998 (20 KLT 130], the learned single Judge held that recovery of amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act would be permissible as the words "on account of loan advanced" would take in the amount due under the decree obtained on the basis of that loan. Therefore, there was no question of limitation. However, the learned Judge relying on the judgment in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Re-Rolling Mills and another [AIR 1994 SC 2151], held that since a decree had been obtained, it would have been incompetent for the Bank to proceed simultaneously with Revenue Recovery proceedings. It was suggested that it would be open to the Bank either to withdraw the Execution Petition under the Revenue Recovery Act or to give up the revenue recovery proceedings until the execution proceedings are terminated.

This, the appellant submits, laid the Bank in deep trouble, and an interpretation of the provisions do not justify the dictum.

4. Mr. R.S. Kalkuara, appearing on behalf of the appellant--Bank submits that in Kuttappan's case (cited supra), the same issue had come up for consideration and the learned Judge at that time had also noticed the presence of the Supreme Court judgment in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation's case, but was of the view that since the point is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation v. P.S. John [1996 (1) KLT 814], the objection made on such lines would not have been sustainable. According to him, the learned Judge erred in sidelining the decision of the Kerala High Court and had sought to rely on a Supreme Court judgment, which dealt with an altogether different legal proposition.

5. Mr. Kalkura submits that the Supreme Court was examining an issue concerning the State Financial Corporations Act, and specifically advertence was made to Sections 29 and 31 of the said Act. Analysing Section 29 of the Act, the Supreme Court had held that it spoke about the Corporation's right to take over the management or possession of a defaulting industrial concern. Section 31 of the Act authorised Corporations to apply to the District Judge for sale of the property pledged or mortgaged with them and for applying for interim injunctions restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery. The court was also examining the scope and impact of the expression "without prejudice", as appeared in Section 31 of the Act, and had indicated that the reach and scope of the two remedies were essentially different. Counsel submits that it is not the case here, as the defaulter was a decree debtor. The decree required to be executed in a time frame given. No funds were forthcoming and for efficacious recoveries there could not have been any bar for resorting to the remedies provided under the Revenue Recovery Act. He had highlighted the observations made in Kuttappan's case that the Revenu