IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9319 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.THAMBY, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, AGED 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.P.V.RICE MILLS, KULAKAPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L&R), SOUTH INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOZHINJAMPARA BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP, ERNAKULAM. 4. P.V.KUNJAPPAN, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, PULLICHKODU HOUSE, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. 5. P.V.CHUMMAR, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, PULLICHKODU HOUSE, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK FOR R1 &2 SRI.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN (ASST.SOLICT GENERAL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 9319 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank. But, because of the default, the Bank proceeded with further steps for recovering the due amount. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that the matter has become final by virtue of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.871/2009 as borne by Ext.P5, whereby it has been held as follows ; “In the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that as a last chance the appellant/petitioner can be granted a further time of six weeks from today to pay off the entire outstanding balance as indicated in the statement filed by the Bank on July 8,2009.” The learned counsel further submits that after suffering the above judgment, the petitioner did not choose to honour the commitment and on the other hand, he filed a petition before the Bank (Ext.P6) and some cursory payments were effected, whereas the balance is still to be cleared in tune with the WPC NO. 9319/2010 -2- mandate given by the Division Bench as per Ext.P5 and hence that no interference is called for. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after Ext.P5 judgment the petitioner has effected some payments. The petitioner approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 sympathetically and pass appropriate orders. This Court finds that absolutely no interference is warranted as the petitioner has not chosen to avail the benefit given in Ext.P5 judgment. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. dpk