IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13247 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.RAVINDRAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, THONIKKAD PARAMBA, NEAR PARAPPURAM TEMPLE, ARAKKINAR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 028. BY ADV. MR. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALAYAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14263 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 6th June , 2011 JUDGMENT Both these writ petitions have been filed by the very same person, seeking for a direction to re-convey the property, which was purchased by the respondent Bank in the course of execution of a decree (on getting necessary permission from the concerned Civil Court); stating that, the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the amount due under the loan transaction. Filing of the former writ petition is suppressed in the latter writ petition, which has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P7 representation, which substantially contains almost the same or similar relief. 2. On coming across the mischief committed by the petitioner in filing the two different writ petitions, both the matters were placed for consideration before this Court on 30.05.2011, when the following order was passed. “The petitioner in both these cases is one and the same person, who is stated as aged '52' in the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 13247 of 2011, while in the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) 14263 of 2011, it is stated that he aged '70'. Obviously, the signature of the W.P. (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011 : 2 : party is entirely different in both the cases. The petitioner shall appear before this Court on 06.06.2011”. Today, the petitioner is present before this Court with his son Prasul. The two different learned counsel appearing for the same petitioner in the two different cases and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank are also present. 3. The course and events leading to the different proceedings were sought to be explained by the writ petitioner and also by his son, which however does not appear to be palatable to this Court. The mischief committed by the petitioner is very much serious, virtually taking this Court for a ride, which cannot be tolerated at all. However, the unfortunate plight of the learned counsel, who took up the cause and filed the writ petitions based on the instructions of the petitioner litigant, suffering much embarrassment is also a factor, which is to be considered. Though this Court is of the firm belief that it is a fit case to be enquired further; taking note of the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 8032 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 13247 of 2011 seeking to withdraw the said writ petition and also considering the plight of the other persons, who are connected with the issue and happened to be the part of it, though may not be intentional, this Court does not intend W.P. (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011 : 3 : to proceed with further steps. However, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are dismissed with a total cost of Rs, 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), which has to be remitted before the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of two weeks. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd