IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3136 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.V.JANARDHANAN,AGED 53, S/O.LATE KANNAN, THETTATHVALAPPIL,KANHIRODE PO KOODALI, KANNOOR. BY ADVS.MR.S.R.AJITH MR.JOJO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ,CHANDROTH COMPLEX NETHAJI ROAD, KANNUR-1 3. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3136 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT As per interim order dated 1.2.2010, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as condition for an order directing that the sale conducted be not confirmed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the sale could not be conducted for the reason that there were no bidders. The counsel also submits that though the petitioner tried to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- in compliance with the direction of this Court, the same was not received. The counsel has therefore produced a Demand Draft for the said amount, which he has offered to hand over to the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has received the Demand Draft. 2. The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits wpc No.3136/2010 2 that the proposal Ext.P11 for compromise of the case of the petitioner is under consideration. There is likelihood that the entire dispute would be settled. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated have already been directed to be recalled. Sale proceedings would be initiated only if the proposal for compromise does not materialise. 4. In the above circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in this case except to treat the payment already made as per the interim order of this Court as payment made towards settlement of the transaction with respondents 1 and 2. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/