IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13945 of 2010(P) -------------------------- WPC.4864/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- MALEEMA R., W/O.HASSANAR, M.P.M.HOUSE, T.C.NO.18/2108,MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPPURA P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHALA BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, P.B. NO.473, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.13945 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to implement the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner one month time to clear off the debt towards the 1st respondent. iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 2. On an earlier occasion, being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount stated as due from the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4864 of 2010, which was disposed as per Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner was permitted to satisfy the condition imposed by the DRT vide Ext.P5 therein, by depositing a sum of Rs.35 lakhs within one week; subject to which, further proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance till 31.3.2010, making clear that the entire outstanding W.P(C) No.13945 of 2010-P 2 liability under the loan transaction was to be cleared on or before 31.3.2010. It was also made clear that if the petitioner failed to honour his commitment as above, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The petitioner has approached this Court again, by filing the present Writ Petition, seeking for the reliefs as mentioned above. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Bank as well, who submits that the course pursued by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, more so, when the petitioner did not choose to honour his commitment and further when the proceedings are still pending before the DRT. In the above circumstances, absolutely no interference is called for in the Writ Petition. The course and conduct of the petitioner cannot but be depreciated. There is no merit and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however, reluctantly refraining from awarding cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab