IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.18292/2018(CS-RES) BETWEEN SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2042, FIRST MAIN, 3RD MAIN, B-SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560 064. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.Y.N.GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES KARNATAKA STATE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK FEDERATION LTD., K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B H HONNALINGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 28.03.2018 MADE BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-N BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent in dispute No.ARD/UBF/206/2016-17 on the file of 2nd respondent – Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 28.3.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.64/2017 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein is borrower from 1st respondent – Janatha Cooperative Bank Limited on the security of immovable property belonging to him. It is stated that the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Hence, aforesaid dispute was raised by the 1st respondent against the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. In the said dispute, the petitioner filed his statement of objections on 13.10.2016. Subsequently, an application is filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the defence which was already raised in his objections’ statement. The said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 15.6.2017, which
wherein the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 28.3.2018. Being aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as contesting respondents. Perused the order impugned. A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that the dispute raised by the 1st respondent is with reference to liability of the petitioner to repay a sum of Rs.22,99,124/- as on the date of raising the dispute on 23.5.2016. In the statement of objections which was filed immediately thereafter, the defence that was taken by the respondent in said proceedings who is petitioner herein is that, the petitioner had agreed to pay interest at 13.5% pa., however, subsequently, he would state that his liability is only to the extent of 9.5% pa., as it is prevailing in nationalized banks, in particular, Corporation Bank, Yelahanka. It is stated that the said defence is based on a transaction he wanted to enter in to with the said Bank, where they had insisted for production of original documents belonging to the petitioner to takeover the loan which is pending with the 1st respondent.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not release the documents in time which has resulted in the petitioner not being able to get the loan transferred to Corporation Bank which was ready to takeover the loan and it is in this background, he wanted to raise such a defence by filing an application for amendment in the aforesaid dispute. The said application was not considered by the 2nd respondent, which was subject matter of revision before the KAT. In the KAT also the said application is rejected on the ground that the same is on misconceived grounds and also on the ground that there is already an admission in the written statement where the petitioner had agreed to repay the entire loan provided the original documents are returned. Therefore, in the light of such an undertaking at the initial stage, it is not open for him to take alternative defence subsequently on the ground that he intended to get the loan transferred to nationalized bank, which was ready for taking over the same, wherein the rate of interest was less than the one imposed by the 2nd respondent. On going through the orders passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the KAT, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-