IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37000 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.SATHYA NARAYANAN, S/O.M.SREEPATHY, RESIDING AT NEAR KARPURESWARA TEMPLE AT HOSDURG IN HOSDURG VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD POST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KANHANGAD BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KANHANGAD. PIN-671 315. 2. VINOD KRISHNAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, NEAR DURGA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANHANGAD POST, KASARAGOD, PIN-670 315. R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 37000 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking directions against first respondent Bank, not to proceed with sale of the petitioner's property which is scheduled on 15.12.2010. 2. It is evident that the first respondent Bank had filed a civil suit, against the petitioner and the second respondent, as O.S. NO.58/2004 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg and obtained a decree in the said suit. It is further clear that the first respondent Bank had filed Execution Petition No.7/2010 seeking to recover a total amount of Rs.4,61,773/-. The sale in question is proclaimed by the execution court in a proceedings in which the Bank is seeking execution of the decree passed by the civil court. 3. Under such circumstances, prayer of the petitioner to interfere with the sale, by exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 226, is totally 2 WP(C) No. 37000/2010 misconceived and could not be entertained. 4. Petitioner further seeks direction to the first respondent to grant time for settlement of the dues. It is stated that, inspite of approach made seeking for 'One Time Settlement' the first respondent Bank has not considered such request. It is for the petitioner to pursue such remedies before the appropriate authority of the first respondent Bank. Considering the decree obtained and also considering pendency of the execution proceedings, it is not proper for this Court to issue any specific directions for settlement of the account. 5. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the first respondent Bank seeking settlement of the account. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc