IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6109 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.M.MUKUNDAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBUDIRIPAD, P.O.MULAYANKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MALIYEKKAL BUILDINGS, MANJERI ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. BY S.C.SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R2 S.C.SRI V.B.UNNIRAJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6109 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had defaulted payment to the 1st respondent and thereupon the 1st respondent initiated proceedings to sell the property mortgaged. It is stated that the petitioner is attempting to raise the funds for discharging the liability and therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting the 1st respondent to defer the sale for a short period. 2. When this matter was taken up, it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that in respect of the same subject matter, the 1st respondent had field a writ petition. It is also stated that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the 1st respondent to liquidate the assets and discharge the liability of the 2nd respondent and realize the balance amount. 3. From the above it is evident that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the attempt is now being made by the 1st respondent to sell the mortgaged property. If that be so, there is no justification to issue any direction interfering with the sale of the property which in turn will have the WPC 6109/08 -2- effect of diluting the directions issued by this Court in the earlier proceedings. 3. In the circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. Hence, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. Antony Dominic, Judge. mn.