IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17382 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.VASUDEVAN, (ATHIRA FURNITURE- PROPRIETOR FORMERLY) MANKASSERIL, SOUTH WEST THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGISTERED OFFICE THRISSUR, THRISSUR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., PUTHIYAKAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY SRI. B.S.KRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 17382 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to the 1st respondent, bank, which is a private scheduled bank. Petitioner is challenging coercive proceedings initiated by the bank for recovery of the loan amounts due from the petitioner. Petitioner submits that although he has expressed his willingness to pay the entire balance of amounts due in a lump sum amount to get back the property which is sold in auction, the bank is not considering the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that in the year 2007, the petitioner approached the bank for benefits under one time settlement scheme which was considered and settled for Rs. 2.15 Lakhs. The petitioner was granted time up to 31.10.2007 to pay the said amount. But the petitioner did not pay the same, instead he approached for extension of time which was granted up to 31.12.2007. Again the petitioner sought extension of time which was granted up to 31.3.2008. W.P.(C).No. 17382 OF 2008 2 Still the petitioner did not pay the same. Therefore the learned standing counsel would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence in the matter, especially when one time settlement scheme is no longer in force. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. First of all this writ petition itself is not maintainable in respect of a loan transaction between the petitioner and a private scheduled bank. Secondly, the bank itself had extended all benefits it could offer to the petitioner and still the petitioner did not pay any amount. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-