IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18615 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. K.N.SADANANDAN,PUTHENVEEDU PURAYIDOM, VADAKKAL.PO,ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRASANNAKUMARI,W/O.K.N.SADANANDAN, PUTHENVEEDU PURAYIDOM,VADAKKAL.PO,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHA ANIL RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.A-111 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ARBITRATION CUM SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERASTIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18615 OF 2009 (V) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. The first petitioner submits that he is an employee retired from the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. It is stated that he had availed a loan of Rs.1,30,000/- on 17/4/2000 from the 1st respondent mortgaging his property as security thereof. Default was committed and proceedings are initiated which have culminated in Ext.P3, where the property is proposed to be sold for realising the dues. 2. Two contentions are raised. One is that subsequent to the award, from the salary of the 1st petitioner, an amount of Rs.35,000/- has been realised and that the said amount has not been given credit. 3. On facts, it is seen that if at all the petitioner had such a contention, the petitioner could have raised that issue either before the Bank or the Sale Officer. On the other hand, this contention is raised for the first time in this writ petition. 4. As far Ext.P3 is concerned, petitioners seek to avoid WPC 18615/09 :2 : the sale by contending that the Bank and the Sale Officer should be directed to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 and should realise the dues from the terminal benefits that are due to him from the KSRTC. No agreement or other provision is shown to me whereby this Court will be justified in compelling the respondents to wait until terminal benefits due to him from KSRTC are available to be realised. 5. In my view, being a creditor, the respondent Bank is entitled to realise its dues by proceeding against the mortgaged property and the fact that money is due to the 1st petitioner from the 1st respondent can be no reason to ask the Bank to wait until it is available. 6. Initially, this Court was inclined to think that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to liquidate the debt by paying the amount in instalments. However, the counsel was not satisfied with such arrangement. 7. In the circumstances, I see no justification to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp