IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5281 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S. NALINAKUMARI, W/O. S.MOHANKUMAR, ELLUVILA VEEDU, KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANA MOODU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, AMBOORI BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV.SHRI GEORGE VARGHESE, SC FOR FEDERAL BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5281 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent bank. It is stated that he had availed five loans. According to the petitioner, she has identified purchaser for the properties mortgaged for availing of three of the loans. But, the second respondent informed that the documents would be handed over only after the entire liabilities are settled. It is in this background, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is praying for a direction to the bank to release the related documents once the individual liabilities are discharged by the petitioner. I am not inclined to issue any direction to the bank in this writ petition. 3. This is for the reason that when proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36897/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 18th December, 2007. In the said WPC.5281/2008 2 judgment, petitioner was directed to remit Rs.5 lakhs within 15 days and to pay the balance amount in four equal monthly instalments, in the manner indicated there. It is the admitted position that payment was not made. It is thereafter this writ petition has been filed raising new contentions. In my view, since the petitioner is not only a defaulter to the bank but also defaulted in complying with Ext.P3 judgment of this Court and hence she is not entitled to get any leniency from this Court. The writ petition fails and dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl