IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35282 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.K. SURESH BABU, S/O. LATE P.K. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SPNRA 183/B, TEMPLE ROAD, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SYNDICATE BANK, KOCHUVELI BRANCH, P.O. KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 3. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, PARUTHIKADU HOUSE, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIMALKUMAR.R, S/O. RAMESAN, URA 71/A, AMRUTHA, BALA NAGAR, VETTUKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.35282/08 A 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PETTA/KADAKAMPILLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SHRI SAJI VARGHESE, SC, SBT. R2 BY SHRI R.S. KALKURA, SC. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35282 OF 2008 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner purchased property vide Exts.P1 and P2. Petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent Bank for purchasing the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The originals of Exts.P1 and P2 were mortgaged with the first respondent. The third respondent appears to have availed a loan from the second respondent Bank on the surety of the fourth respondent showing the residence of the third respondent as T.C.29/823. Respondents 5 and 6 started recovery proceedings against the petitioner. This is for the reason that T.C.29/823 has mentioned in Exts.P6 and P7. The second respondent, on being contacted, issued Ext.P8 wherein it is stated that it is a case of mistaken identity that the demand was raised against the petitioner. Even though this fact was already informed to respondents 5 and 6, they are still proceeding with Exts.P6 and WPC.35282/08 A 2 P7. When the matter came up today, learned counsel for the second respondent sought further time for getting instructions. But, the learned Government Pleader submits that actually the second respondent has written to the Village Officer stating that it is a case of mistaken identity and the proceedings need not be proceeded against the petitioner and the Revenue Officials do not intend to proceed against the petitioner. I record this submission and close the Writ Petition. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge