IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35410 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AMBILI SAJIKUMAR, W/O. SAJI KUMAR, VELIYIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE NO.705 ASRAMAM NORTH, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER - 691 001. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHATHANNOR BRANCH, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – 691 572. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C, S.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35410 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Prayer in this writ petition inter alia is to consider Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner before the respondent Bank, seeking to release an immovable property attached by the Bank. The petitioner is the owner of the property and she stood as guarantor with respect to a loan availed by her husband from the respondent bank. Petitioner is also seeking direction against the respondent bank to permit regularisation of the loan account. 2. It is stated that on failure to remit amounts due in the loan account, the bank had filed a civil suit, O.S.345/2010 before the Sub Court, Kollam, and the property in question was attached by virtue of an order issued by that court. It is surprising to note that the petitioner is approaching this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without resorting to any remedy available under the provisions of the W.P.(C).35410/10-A -2- Code of Civil Procedure, and without approaching the very same court which had issued the order of attachment. I am of the opinion that filing of this writ petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this court. 3. However, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to his rights to seek appropriate remedy from the civil court. 4. Permission is granted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb