IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29385 of 2009(P) -------------------------- OA.217/2000 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALAKRISHNAN ASARI, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU ASARI, AGED 78 YEARS, VARUVADAKKETHIL HOUSE PULIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.M.SRUTHY SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RECOVERY OFFICER,DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP)8TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B BUILDING PANAMPILLY NAGAR,COCHIN 682 036,KERALA. 2. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, KUNDARA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. SHERIN .S, S/O.M.SHAMSUDDIN, THENGUVILA,MYLAKKAD PO, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R3 SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29385 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to grant time up to 30.11.2009 to liquidate the liability under the recovery certificate referred to in Exhibit P1 sale proclamation. 2. Considering the limited scope of interference, description of facts and figures is not necessary, particularly in view of the unrebutted turn of events and subsequent developments. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 16.10.2009, this Court directed the first respondent not to confirm the sale in favour of the third respondent for a period of ten days, if it was not already confirmed. Subsequently, the interim order was extended on different occasions and as per order dated 24.11.2009, the petitioner, who was the guarantor in respect of the loan transaction, in view of the willingness expressed to wipe off the entire liability, was directed to satisfy the same to the bank within a period of two weeks and the respondent bank was directed to file a satisfaction report. This 2 Court also directed the petitioner to deposit before the first respondent a sum calculated at 10% as interest on Rs.19,03,860/- (deposited by the third respondent on 18.9.2009 and on 1.10.2009 as evidenced from Exhibit .R3(a) and R3(b)) as due for the period from the date of respective deposits till payment) within a period of one week after deposit of the amount before the Bank. On such event, the first respondent was directed to record satisfaction of the decree debt and to refund the amount deposited by the third respondent to him, along with the interest deposited by the petitioner. It was also observed by this Court that the petitioner would be liable to effect the statutory payments, if any due, with respect to the sale. 4. It is revealed from the subsequent proceedings that the petitioner could not satisfy the entire liability as above on time and I.A.16316/2009 was filed for extension of time to comply with the direction by four weeks from 7.12.2009. After hearing both the sides, the said I.A. was allowed granting further time for payment of the amount stipulated under the order dated 24.11.2009, till 7.1.2010; making it crystal-clear that the extension was granted as the final chance and that on failure, the respondent Bank was free to proceed with further steps. 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of some adverse circumstances, the petitioner could not effect the payment even within the extended time and that the petitioner intends to file a petition, to review the order dated 23.12.2009, mainly in view of the fact that petitioner's son-in-law who assured to provide the necessary funds is lying admitted in the Appollo Hospital, Chennai due to a massive heart attack. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the order passed by this Court on 23.12.2009 is a self serving order and that the condition admittedly having not been satisfied even within the extended time, no further interference is possible. After hearing the rival submissions and also the undisputed facts and figures, this Court does not find it fit or proper to keep the Writ Petition pending any further. 7. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue other remedies, if any available under the relevant provisions of law. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge cms