IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/28THAGRAHAYANA 1933 WA. No. 1898 of 2011 ( ) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.25007/2010 DATED 28-09-2011 APPELLANT : ELIKUTTY THOMAS, W/O THOMAS, AGED 67, KIZHAKKETHOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. MR. S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS : 1. THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 4266, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA BRANCH, ARUVITHARA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 686 581 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM 686 001 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE MEENACIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 4266, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA BRANCH, ARUVITHARA, PONNJAR, KOOTAYAM DISTRICT 686 581 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSISTANT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001 R1 AND R3 BY ADV. SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2011 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. NO. 1898 OF 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE APPELLANT'S RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.12.2004 FOR THE YEAR 2004 - 05 OF THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2007 - 2010 ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION PUBLI- SHED IN KERALA GAZETTTE. ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RES- PONDENT BANK FOR PAYMENT OF RS.1,50,000/- DATED 20.05.2005 ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 26.12.2005 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 61,000/- TOWARDS DECREE DEBT. ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 22.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK, PALA FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 10,000/- ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 10/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE FEDERALA BANK PALA FOR PAY- MENT OF RS. 10,000/- ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 20/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK, PALA FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 15,000/- ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF AUCTION NOTICE DATED 19/2/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C.M.Appl. No. 1071 Of 2011 and W.A. No. 1898 Of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon .J. C.M. Appln. No. 1071 of 2011: This is an application to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the above writ appeal. Adv. Sri. Shaji Thomas Porkkattil, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 & 3. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the other respondents. Delay is condoned. Writ Appeal : The appellant, who was a defaulter in satisfying the liability towards the respondent Bank, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25007 of 2010, seeking for a direction to be given to the first respondent to grant the benefit of Ext. P2 Circular, which rather enables the appellant/petitioner to have the liability closed by availing the benefit of 'one time settlement'. W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 : 2 : 2. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the sequence of events was brought to the notice of the Court, particularly from the part of the Bank, saying that, the writ petitioner did not deserve any sympathy, as it was the 4th or 5th round of litigation, that was being pursued and further that there was quite a lot of suppression with regard to the actual facts and figures. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that in respect of the liability to be cleared to the Bank, ARC 122/1999 was filed and a decree was obtained by the Bank against the appellant/petitioner. Pursuant to the steps taken for execution of the Award, the property mortgaged by the appellant/petitioner was subjected to sale on 19.10.2011, when the property had to be bid by the Bank because there was no other bidder, of course, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 3. The appellant/petitioner challenged the sale by filing W.P.(C) No. 5341 of 2007, which was dismissed as 'not pressed', as per the judgment dated 19.03.2007. Thereafter, the sale was confirmed by the second respondent and as per Ext. P1 letter dated 27.09.2007, the second respondent directed the first respondent Bank to extend the benefit of Ext. P2 Circular, enabling the defaulter to clear the liability by W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 : 3 : availing the benefit of 'one time settlement'. It was seeking for the benefit of the said Circular that the writ petitioner sought to approach this Court. 4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court, that the petitioner had earlier sought for the benefit of 'one time settlement scheme'. The application was accepted and the defaulter was let known as per the notice dated 13.12.2004, the actual amount to be satisfied and asking her to deposit 10 % of the said amount as per the norms prescribed. That opportunity was not made use of by the defaulter, who however filed W.P.(C) 12811 of 2005, without revealing filing of the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 24729 of 2004, which was disposed of as per the judgment dated 23.11.2004, directing the Bank to have the petitioners' claim considered for 'one time settlement'. 5. Coming to W.P(C) No. 12811 of 2005, an interim order was passed, intercepting the coercive proceedings, subject to certain conditions, which however were not complied with and in the said circumstances, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 : 4 : 6. Still, further the writ petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 32852 of 2005, suppressing the factum of filing the earlier two writ petitions and it was also dismissed for non prosecution. It was thereafter, that the appellant/petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 5341 of 2007, again suppressing the filing of the earlier writ petition, which was dismissed as not pressed on 19.12.2007. The sale of the concerned property was confirmed on 26.03.2009 and the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 35007 of 2010, wherein interference was declined by the learned Single Judge, observing that, the said writ petition was nothing but an abuse to the process of Court, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, who however could not bring anything to the notice of this Court, to arrive at a finding that the observations made by the learned Single Judge are wrong or unfounded in any manner. The learned counsel submits that, on all the occasions the appellant had been paying some or other amounts towards the satisfaction of the liability under the loan transaction (availed in the year 1996), which according to the appellant has not been properly accounted by the Bank. We find that the said W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 : 5 : question does not deserve to be considered or adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find that the interference declined by the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct and in order. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd