IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19646 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW, S/O.OOMMEN, AGED 69, MERRY LAND, KARAZHMA KIZHAKKUMMURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALAPPUZHA. 3. RAJAN P.OOMMEN, PUTHENPURAYIDATHIL, MATTOM SOUTH, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. MR.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19646 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 sale deed of 1998, he purchasd the property mentioned therein from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner initiated a rent control proceedings against the 3rd respondent, which resulted in an order of eviction, in R.C.P. No.7/2000. The petitioner thereafter filed E.P. No.56/2007, where the 1st respondent Bank filed E.A.No.117/2007 stating that the subject matter of the Execution Petition was a property mortgaged to the Bank. It was also stated that the Bank had already obtained an award in its favour in A.R.C. No.86/01. 2. Irrespective of the aforesaid contentions raised, according to the petitioner, E.A.No.117/07 was rejected by the Execution Court. The petitioner, now submits that by Ext.P2, the Bank has proceeded to sell the property in question. It is stated that thereupon, the petitioner filed WP(C) No26443/2008 resulting in Ext.P3 judgment. According to the petitioner, in pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent, the previous land lord, who mortaged the property, filed Ext.P4 application before the respondent Bank on WP(C) No.19646/2009 -2- 11/03/2009 claiming that he be given the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, which was implemented by the Bank. It is stated that if the Bank allows the request, the petitioner will liquidate the liability on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 3. In this writ petition, what the petitioner complains is that the Bank has not considered Ext.P4 application filed by the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank points out that in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioner ought to have made a partial payment, and that the period of the Scheme has expired on 31/03/2009. 4. Going by the date given in Ext.P4, the same was made on 11/03/2009. Therefore, before the period of expiry of the Scheme, if a valid application was received from the 3rd respondent, there is no reason why the same shall not be considered. Therefore, I direct the Bank to consider Ext.P4, if the same was validly made, that too within the validity period of the Scheme. If so, orders shall be passed and communicated to the parties within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg