IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4918 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VASANTHA ALVA, S/O.SHEKAPPA ALVA, KARIJEE HOUSE, P.O.ICHILAMPADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.FF-113, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & MANAGER, KASARAGOD. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4918/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 4/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 4918 OF 2010 L ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 notice for sale of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent bank. However, the amount was not repaid by him. The respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner and an award was obtained. The award was put in execution and finally led to the issue of Ext.P1 notice. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 contending that his property would fetch much more than the amount that is due to the respondent. Therefore, he sought to set aside the same. As per interim order dated 16/2/2010, an order of interim stay was granted to the petitioner on condition that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was remitted within a period of two weeks. However, since the amount was not paid the counsel for the writ petitioner sought extension of time for making the payment that was stipulated. Accordingly, though the time was extended by two weeks from 16/2/2010, it is submitted that no payment has been made by the petitioner so far. WPC 4918/2010 2 2. Counsel for the respondent, Adv. Pushparajan Kodoth submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the interim order of this Court for the reason that he has not complied with the condition stipulated therein. 3. Since the petitioner has not chosen to comply with the condition in the interim order dated 16/2/2010, he is not entitled to any further relief from this Court. It is worth noticing that the petitioner has no explanation also for not complying with the condition stipulated in the interim order. In the above circumstances this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 4918/2010 3