IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5596 of 2007(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.PRASAD, S/O. KESAVAN MOOTHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SREEKRISHNA MODERN RICE MILL, IX/341, OLASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S. CANARA BANK, SULTHANPET BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 5596 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st May, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of financial assistance from the respondent-Bank. The petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount. The Bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing an O.A., which was decreed. While so, the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank for one time settlement of the loan account on payment of Rs. 16,33,600/-. The respondent agreed to the said proposal, pursuant to which the petitioner paid the said amount. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite closing the loan account accepting one time settlement amount, the security documents submitted by the petitioner have not been returned by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondent-Bank in that regard. 2. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, the petitioner's counsel was absent. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the documents were returned and the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the same on 1-3-2007. Counsel for the petitioner also produced before me a photo copy of receipt dated 1-3-2007, which is stated to be in respect of receipt of those documents. The writ petition was filed on 19-2-2007. That being so, clearly, after the filing of the writ petition, the respondent has returned the documents of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.