IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936

CRP.No. 563 of 2010 ( )

------------------------

I.A.NO.612/2009 IN OS 152/2002 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

DATED 09-09-2010

REVISION PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF

----------------------------------- --------------

M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.

PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR

REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER

PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR.

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY

RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER

------------------------ -------------------------------

1. MR.S.RAVI, S/O.P SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI

RESIDING AT PADMABHAVAN, THOLICODU

PUNALUR, PIN 691 305.

2. P.SUBRAHMANYAN ACHARI

S/O.PADMABHABHAN ACHARI

RESIDING AT PADMABHAVAN, THOLICODU

PUNALUR, PIN 691 305.

3. S.PONNAMMA, W/O.SASIDHARAN,

AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANIKANDA VILASOM

MANIYAR, PUNALUR, PIN 691 305.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

--------------------------------------

C.R.P.No.563 of 2010

--------------------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2015

O R D E R

In this revision, the petitioner challenges the order dated

9^th September, 2010 in I.A.No.612 of 2009 in O.S.No.152 of

2002 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of

Kottarakkara, by which the court below dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

The petitioner filed the suit for realisation of a sum

of ₹4,03,523/- together with interest at 9% per annum with

quarterly rests from the date of suit till the date of realisation

from defendants 1 and 2 personally and by sale of the plaint

CRP 563/2010

2

schedule properties described in the plaint and also by sale of

all of their assets both movable and immovable. There is also a

prayer to pass a decree for the sale of the immovable property

described in the plaint A schedule in terms of Order 34 of the

Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of the amounts as claimed

in the plaint.

3.

The respondent/defendant filed a written statement

in which there was only a bald statement that the defendants

never executed any agreement of hypothecation, agreement of

guarantee, letter and affidavit etc. as stated in paragraph 5 of

the plaint. With reference to the specific averment in paragraph

8 of the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against

defendants 1 and 2 charged on the plaint schedule property,

there is no denial or contest in the written statement.

CRP 563/2010

3

4.

The court below decreed the suit by the judgment

dated 8^th January, 2009 by which the plaintiff was allowed to

realise an amount of ₹4,03,523/- with interest at 9% per annum

from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants. No

oral evidence was adduced by the defendants. In paragraph 8

of the judgment, the court below held thus :

“Though defendants had disputed the execution of

documents for the availing of the loan and the execution

of revival letters acknowledging the liability, during the

cross examination nothing was disputed to PW1. In the

proof affidavit PW1 had deposed about the loan availed

by defendants 1 and 2 by executing Exhibits A1 to A9

and the execution of revival letters as per Exhibits A8

and A9. Thus the unchallenged evidence of PW1

regarding the loan availed by defendants 1 and 2 and the

execution of revival letters (Exts.A8 and A9) by them is

clearly proving the case of plaintiff regarding the loan

availed by defendants 1 and 2. As first and second

defendants had executed Exts.A8 and A9 revival letters

acknowledging their liability, the contention regarding

the bar of limitation is unsustainable.”

5.

However, no charge decree was granted as prayed

for. Accord