IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28348 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- CMP.2884/2008 of C.J.M.,MANJERI PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.K.RAVEENDRAN, 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.KRISHNAN, SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER, UNDER REVENUE DEPARTMENT, R/AT.SHYAM NILAYAM, MATTANAKKAL, ARAKUPARAMBU VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMARAN SMT.M.A.SULFIA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- VIJAYA BANK, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. ADV.SRI.K.ANAND, SC, VIJAYA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 28348 OF 2008 (Y) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Sri.K.Anand on behalf of the respondent. 2. In April 2006, the petitioner obtained Exhibit P6 judgment from this Court with directions to pay certain amounts in instalments to avoid distress action on account of recoverables due under loan transaction. Thereafter, the respondent bank obtained Exhibit P7 decree. But, the bank could not enjoy the fruit of that litigation and that led to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. I do not find any ground to interfere with it. As of now, the bank has invoked Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the matter is before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The plea of the petitioner is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is incompetent under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. That no more survives the judgment of the W.P.(C) No.28348/2008 - 2 - Division Bench on that issue. I also do not find no other room to come to the aid of the petitioner. This is not only because of the finality of Exhibits P6 and P7, but also because of the fact that the reasons referrable to the health of the wife of the petitioner are matters, which have been appropriately taken care of some time in 2007 and the medical records by themselves do not show any circumstance, which requires any further indulgence. The discharge summary, Exhibit P1, shows that, in 2004, the petitioner's wife was admitted with diagnosis of fibroid in the uterus and had undergone certain procedures. Later in 2007, petitioner's wife had to get assistance of Centre for Neuro- Psychiatry, referrable to sleeplessness and other situations with the specific view of the doctor, in running page No.17, that “Actually she is not paranoid”. These materials do not impress me to find that the circumstances warrant any exercise of extraordinary power, over looking the finality of Exhibits P6 and P7. That is just not permissible. Be that as it may, in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner states that his daughter's marriage is scheduled to be in October, 2008. With the said W.P.(C) No.28348/2008 - 3 - statement on record and taking that submission on its face value, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed till the third of November, 2008, while it would be within the authority of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the matter and list it for dispossession on the 3rd November, 2008. All other grounds rejected. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/25/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.