The doctrine of estoppel by election applies when a litigant chooses one remedy over another, barring the use of the alternative remedy. Additionally, the court discussed the applicability of SRO. No. 797/79, which allowed banks to recover loan amounts through Revenue Recovery proceedings.

1. The judgment debtors are the revision petitioners.

2. The respondent bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,593/- to the first petitioner under the T.R.D P. Scheme. The first petitioner availed of the same on 9-3-1984. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sureties.

3. The first petitioner failed to repay the loan amount. This resulted in the respondent bank getting Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner under the loan transaction; and in connection with that, the authority concerned got the demand notice. No. Cl-2092/ 87 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,288.78, served on the first petitioner. In response to the demand notice the first petitioner on 28-4-1987 paid Rs. 1,000/- and the entire balance amount due, namely Rs. 3,385.40 was paid on 13-5-1987 and obtained receipts for the payments. The liability under the loan transaction thus got discharged.

4. The bank thereafter instituted the suit, O. S.62/87 for recovery of Rs. 4,325.78 being the balance amount due by the first petitioner to the bank under the aforesaid loan transaction. On receipt of notice in the suit the first petitioner met the Manager and appraised him of the fact that he had repaid the loan amount in full and in proof of that, he, it is said, produced the receipts issued by the Revenue authorities. The Manager promised to withdraw the suit. The petitioners therefore did not enter appearance in the suit. The suit accordingly was decreed ex-parte, and to execute the decree the respondent bank filed E. P. 77/87 from which this revision arises.

5. The petitioners resisted the E. P. They filed a counter statement containing statements to the effect that even before the suit was instituted, the amounts due under the loan transaction bad been repaid through the Revenue authorities who had initiated Revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of the respondent bank. Thus the entire liability stood discharged even before the suit was instituted, they contend.

6. Without taking any of these aspects into account the court below has passed a criptic order which is under challenge in this revision. The order reads:

"On the basis of the statement filed by the decree bolder and in the light of the argument advanced I am of the view that Rs. 968.10 is due from the judgment-debtor. Order passed accordingly. For payment to 3-3-1988'.

From the facts stated hereinbefore, it is clear that the respondent bank had initiated allied proceedings, (1) The Revenue Recovery proceedings and (2) a regular suit, for recovery of the amounts due by the petitioners under the loan transaction mentioned above. How far the bank was justified in law in initiating these proceedings for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners, simultaneously, is the question before me.

7. Before I deal with this question I shall refer to the notification which makes it possible for a bank to recover amounts due from any person on account of any loan advanced to such person by the bank without resort to the remedy of recovery by filing suit. The notification reads:

"SRO. No. 797/79.- in exercise of the powers conferred by S.71 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (15 of 1968) and in supersession of the Notification No, 68933/B3/78/RD dated the 24th November 1978 published as SRO. No 1199/78 in the Kerala Gazette No. 52 dated the 26th December 1978, the Government of Kerala, being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest, hereby declare that the provisions of the said Act shall be applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person to any bank on account of any loan advanced to such person by that bank for agriculture or agricultural purposes...".

The explanation attached to this notification enumerates the banks which are entitled to the benefit of this notification.

8. This notification declares that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act shall be applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person to any bank on account of any loan advan