IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1995 of 2009(K) ------------------------- CMP.6170/2009 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUJI VENU, W/O. S. VENU,AND D/O PUSHPAVALLY, KANNIMATTOM HOUSE, CMC 27, CHERTHAL, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA,PRESENTLY RES. AT AHAMMED COLONY, HOUSE NO.12, NAKKEEL, ZALKAI,DUBAI REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND P/A HOLDER, PUSHPAVALLY D/O. BHAVANI, KAMANGALAMS, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. PUSHPAVALLY, D/O. BHAVANI, AGED 64 YEARS, CMC 27, CHERTHALA, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MULLACKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, P.O. ALAPPUZHA. 3. S.VENU, KANNIMATTOM HOUSE, CMC 27, CHERTHALA, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AHAMMED COLONY, HOUSE NO;12 NAKKEEL ZALKAI, DUBAI. 4. SMT. SEEMA RAVVENDRAN, ADVOCATE ALAPPUZHA , (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER). R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1995 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed on 19.1.2009 challenging Ext.P4 proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. That proceedings followed Ext.P3 measure taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of that Act on 30.9.2008, against which, the petitioners had a remedy available under Section 17. Not only that, as shown by the counter affidavit, the first petitioner earlier filed W.P(C).23852/08 but did not obey the direction in Ext.R1(a) judgment regarding payments. On 9.12.2008, the petitioners also executed Ext.R1(d) concurrence to vacate. In the light of those matters, I do not deem it appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioners. The request of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners for withdrawal of the writ petition is rejected. The writ petition is dismissed. I will, however, defer from imposing an order of costs which is otherwise called for in this case. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.