Litigants cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for claims rendered unenforceable by the law of limitation after significant delays.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants filed W.P.(C)No.38087 of 2024 before this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Thiruvalla, to return all the documents submitted by them, including the original title deed bearing No.3891 of 2004 of the Sub Registrar Office, Paipra, dated 24.04.2007, expeditiously, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners had availed a loan from the Main Branch of the State Bank of India, Thiruvalla for the construction of a residential building. They deposited 12 documents with the 5^th respondent Branch Manager, in order to obtain the said loan, on 24.04.2007. The documents deposited include the original title deed bearing No.3891 of 2004 of the Sub Registrar Office, Paipra, of the property offered as security, a copy of the prior deed, tax receipts, possession certificate, encumbrance certificate, location sketch, Non-Revenue Recovery attachment certificate, salary certificate, etc., and also post-dated cheques. The petitioners closed the loan account by remitting the entire amount on 07.07.2008, and an endorsement to that effect has also been made in Ext.P1 passbook with Account No.30166792980. The 1^st petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 representations dated 17.09.2008 and 17.12.2008 made before the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Thiruvalla, for the return of documents, and Ext.P4 representation dated 12.10.2020 made before the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Thiruvalla. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a letter dated 17.10.2024, in order to show that the petitioners’ son wants to pursue his studies for Professional Pilot Training. Ext.P6 is a representation dated 01.10.2024 made by the petitioners before the 5^th respondent Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Thiruvalla.

3. In W.P.(C)No.38087 of 2024, respondents 1 and 3 to 5 filed a counter affidavit dated 03.01.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of that counter affidavit read thus;

“5. As per the Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules , 1985, which is a subordinate legislation made under Section 45Y of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949, the bank is legally obliged to preserve the records regarding the loan/advances only for a period, not less than eight years immediately preceding the current calendar year. In the case in hand, the borrower closed the loan on 06.07.2008, and so, the bank is legally obliged to maintain the records as regards the said loan only for eight years from the financial year 2008-2009. Thus, the records as regards the borrowings is liable to be maintained till the financial year 2016-2017.

6. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 28.10.2024, i.e., after a period of more than seven years, after the destruction of records; and after a period of fifteen years from the date of closure of loan account. The bank could have authoritatively confirmed as to whether the registered document has been returned to the borrower or not, only if, the concerned register could have been available with the bank. That apart, the bank cannot, at this point of time, authoritatively say, as to whether they received Exhibits-P2, P3 and P4 representations in the year 2008. However, the bank has received Exhibit-P6 representation.

7. It is submitted that the bank has constituted a team under the leadership of Chief Manager (Credit), Regional Business Unit, Thiruvalla, to inquire as to whether the document mort