This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 1st respondent to register the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-4-H-711 and for other related reliefs.
2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioner's father, late V. Ramachandra Reddiar was the registered owner of a motor car bearing No.KL-4-H-711. Petitioner's father expired on 24.12.2013. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to the name of the petitioner, under the pretext that consent of the financier has to be obtained, transfer of ownership is not granted by the 1st respondent. Further it is the contention of the petitioner that loan if any availed by the father of the petitioner is barred by law of limitation since the last payment, to the knowledge of the petitioner to the loan account was on W.P.(C). No.6001 of 2016 2 31.5.2005. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent cannot insist that the petitioner should secure the NOC from the 2nd respondent bank in order to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. It is in this background petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
4. Thrust of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the last payment of the loan account was on 31.5.2015, the debt if any due from the petitioner's father is barred by limitation. It is also contended by the learned counsel that since in spite of service of notice on 2nd respondent issued from this court, 2nd respondent has not cared to appear and therefore, the pleadings put forth by the petitioner with respect to the limitation is deemed to be accepted by the 2nd respondent. On the other hand learned Government Pleader submitted that the authority in the fact scenario is to follow Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
5. However I am not prepared to accept the said contentions put forth by the petitioner since several factual W.P.(C). No.6001 of 2016 3 circumstances intervene in the matter regarding question of limitation against outstanding debt and therefore, the same cannot be considered by this court in a writ of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart this court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226, of an administrative action of non-consideration of an application for change of registry by the 1st respondent, is not expected to consider an incidental issue raised by the petitioner against, the 2nd respondent bank with respect to limitation. The power and authority conferred on this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be stretched to such an extent to consider a primary question of limitation, which exercise has to be undertaken by the petitioner resorting to civil remedy. Moreover, the question of limitation raised by the petitioner is not a subject matter germane to judicial review sought for, of administrative action. Petitioner is also not entitled to raise such a cause of action in a writ petition, independent of the administrative action of the authority under challenges which thus means, the petitioner cannot seek issuance of a writ declaring that the debt owing to the 2nd respondent is barred W.P.(C). No.6001 of 2016 4 under law of limitation. That apart, without the 2nd respondent raising a claim and instituting an action to recover the amounts due to it, petitioner is not entitled to such declaration that the claim is barred by limitation. So also in order to raise the issue of limitation the debt due is to be admitted. When such an issue is raised, petitioner is bound to lead evidence and prove it. Merely because 2nd respondent has not appeared before this court, it cannot be held that, the debt is barred by limitation, taking into account the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
But in view of the pendency of application seeking change of registry in the RC book, I am inclined to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to issue notice to the 2nd respondent and take a decision on the issue of change of registry in the RC book, in accordance with law. Petitioner will be at liberty to produce satisfactory proof before the 1st respondent in order to establish the claim by resorting to the parameters provided under Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Any how a decision shall be taken by the 1st respondent taking into account the contentions put forth by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment W.P.(C). No.6001 of 2016 5 and in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-