The petitioner, claiming to be a farmer and claiming to have availed of an agricultural loan from the 1st respondent, approached the 2nd respondent for relief. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the loan granted even going by Ext.P1 is a consumer loan, since the number itself is shown as CLD-314. 2. Further it is also asserted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that, the 1st respondent does not at all advance money for agricultural purposes. Hence, the prayer made by the petitioner for consideration of Exts. P3 and P4 by the 2nd respondent and the prayer for keeping in abeyance the proceedings for recovery cannot be entrained.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.