IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1818 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11275/2009 Dated 06/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNA MENON, AGED 65, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MAMMORA BUILDING, 401, RIGGA ROAD, DEIRA, DUBAI, RESIDIG AT 28/1413, 'ANUGRAGHA', K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20 BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUNAKKARA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUNAKKARA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KIZHAKKEL HOUSE, VILLIAPPALLY PO, BADAGARA-673542. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1818 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th April, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.11275 of 2009, has approached this Court in the present writ appeal. 2. The property belonging to the appellant was alleged to be sold in favour of the third respondent and thereafter there arose a dispute between the parties as to the transaction. It is also contended that the third respondent has executed an agreement for resale in favour of the appellant also which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the third respondent has mortgaged the property to the Bank for the purpose of availing the loan and on committing default recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the writ petition. W.A.No.1818 of 2009 - 2 - 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner does not have any legal right to compel the first respondent Bank to receive the amount from him as against the amounts due from the third respondent on the ground that there exists no contract between the appellant and the Bank. 4. During the pendency of the writ appeal, initially, on 27.8.2009 the third respondent undertook before this Court to clear the loan. But as he was not able to do the same, the appellant herein paid the initial amount of Rupees five lakhs which is acknowledged by the Bank. Now the appellant has undertaken before us to pay off the entire balance due to the first respondent Bank within 15 days from today. 5. In view of the offer made by the appellant to clear the entire balance, learned counsel for the first respondent Bank states that so far as the Bank is concerned, if the payment is made it will have nothing to do further with the property in dispute. Of course, this clearance of loan by the appellant will be subject to the litigation pending between the parties which has to be fought by them W.A.No.1818 of 2009 - 3 - independently. On such payment, the Bank shall produce the title deeds in deposit before the civil court where the dispute between the appellant and third respondent is pending. It is further made clear that if the appellant fails to clear the entire loan transaction, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed with the recovery proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vku