IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16918 of 2008(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED @BAPPUTTI AGED 72 YEARS, CHERUVAYIL HOUSE, ENKAKKAD PO., MANKARA, WADAKKANCHERY TRISSUR BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, COCHIN CO.OP.AGRL. RURAL DEVRELOPMENT BANK LTD., WADAKKANCHERRY BRANCH, TRISSUR 2. THE COCHIN CO.OP.AGRL.RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REPBY ITS SECRETARY CIVIL LANE ROAD, TRISSUR-4 3. THE SALE OFFICER, COCHIN CO.OP.AGRL.RURA L DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, CIVIL LINE, TRISSUR.4 R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.16918 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent bank. He defaulted repayment and that compelled the second respondent to initiate coercive steps for realisation of the said amount. Ext.P5 sale notice has been issued to the petitioner. It is on receipt of the said sale notice that the petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly challenging the same. On 6.6.2008 this Court ordered notice before admission. The petitioner sought three months' time to wipe off the entire outstanding and based on the said submission, further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P5 was suspended for a period of three months provided the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of three weeks from 6.6.2008. When this matter came up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that despite the interim order dated 6.6.2008, the petitioner did not effect any payment as ordered by this Court. WPC.16918/2008 : 2 : In view of the said circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition merits no consideration. Obviously, on 6.6.2008, the petitioner had sought only 3 months time to wipe off the liability as on 6.6.2008. The fact is that despite the passage of more than two years time since 6.6.2008 he had not cared to comply with the direction in the interim order. Despite obtaining such an extended time the petitioner failed to clear the liability. I have gone through the contentions raised in the writ petition. No ground has been made out to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the respondent to recover the amount arising out of the loan transaction in question. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge