IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9629 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KRISHNAN KUTTY, CHACHIPARAMBIL, VENGASSERY, KALLIKADU, AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M/S.MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDINGS, APPOLO BUNDER, MUMBAI -01. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S.MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD 678 007. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPALAM 679 101. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P © No. 9629 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: “i. To direct the 3rd respondent to abstain from forcefully seizing Maruthi Alto Car bearing Reg. No.KL-51B/3372 owned and possessed by the petitioner; ii. to direct the 1st respondent to regularize the future instalments, until the last one falling due on 24..11.2011 iii. to direct the 1st respondent to accept the defaulted payment in 3-4 equal monthly instalments; AND iv. grant such other reliefs as are deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case” 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default committed by the petitioner with regard to the W.P © No. 9629 OF 2011 2 repayment of loan availed from the respondents 1 and 2 for the purchase of a vehicle was not intentional but because of some unforeseen circumstances. Though some breathing time was sought for to clear the liability, the same was not acceded to and the vehicle is now sought to be taken possession of by the third respondent at the instance of the other respondents. 3. Going by the nature of the reliefs sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, the remedy is elsewhere. However, it is made clear that the third respondent shall ensure that if at all any step is proposed to be taken against the vehicle, it will be strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk