Rajeev K. Mathew vs The State Bank of India

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.—The Petitioner is the first Defendant/judgment debtor in O.S. No. 111/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Suit was filed by the Respondent bank for realisation of money which was decreed on 10.2.2004. As per the decree the Petitioner is liable to pay 7 Lakhs and odd rupees with interest and cost. The Petitioner paid amount towards the decree debt. It is stated that balance some due is Rs. 1,38,607/- as on 30.9.2008.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sub Judge in I.A. No. 1513/2008. The said I.A was filed to record the full satisfaction of the decree and cancel the charge imposed on the plaint schedule properties. Before the trial court the Petitioner pointed out that he is entitled to the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 introduced by the Central Government. Referring to the said scheme, the learned Sub Judge noticed that banks have to prepare a list of the eligible borrowers. It is not disputed that in the said list the Petitioner''s name is not included. The learned Sub Judge also referred to another provision in the scheme which would go to show that any person who is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the list can file an application before of the Agricultural Grievance Redressal Officer within a period of 30 days. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not approached the Grievance Redressal Officer complaining about the non-inclusion of his name. In the said circumstances, the learned Sub judge held that the Petitioner cannot approach the court and contend that he is entitled to the Debt Relief Scheme and his liability is liable to be waived as per the provisions of the Debt Relief Scheme. For the said reason, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. I find that no valid grounds are made out by the Petitioner to interfere with Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge rightly held that prayer of the Petitioner in the I.A cannot be allowed for the reasons discussed and stated elaborately in the order.

The writ petition is without any merit and it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer of the Lending Institution for appropriate orders, if so advised. In that event, the Grievance Redressal Officer shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.