The court affirmed that under Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, a civil suit is not maintainable against cooperative bank recovery proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent bank to recover amounts due under an Award obtained by the Bank in proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1969 Act’).

2. On 07.10.2025, this this Court passed the following interim order:-

‘’Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents. Petitioners shall remit Rupees two lakh within one month with the bank. The petitioner is prepared to pay the balance amount due to the bank in installments. If sale takes place as scheduled, its confirmation shall stand deferred on condition that the petitioners remit Rupees two lakh as directed above.’’

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank refers to the counter affidavit filed before this Court and submits that immediately after filing of this writ petition and the interim order dated 07.10.2025, the petitioners filed O.S. seeking injunction, restraining the Bank from proceeding with the recovery. It is also pointed out that, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 100 of the 1969 Act, no civil suit is maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also failed to comply with the condition imposed in the interim order dated 07.10.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had not disclosed to him that they had filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara. He seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, petitioners have not shown any ground entitling them to any relief in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, since the petitioners have not proved their bona fides by depositing the amount directed to be paid as a condition for the interim order, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

6. Further, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 100 of the 1969 Act, a civil suit is not maintainable, at the instance of the petitioners, is only to be accepted. In the light of the above finding, it will be open to the 2nd respondent bank to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara for rejection of plaint in O.S. No.1033 of 2025 on the ground of maintainability. If such an application is filed by the 2nd respondent bank, the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara shall consider such application, taking note of the provisions of of the 1969 Act, as also the observations in this judgment and take a decision on the application to be filed by the 2nd respondent bank without any delay.

This writ petition stands dismissed with the above observations. Very reluctantly, I refrain from imposing exemplary costs.