IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34631 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.M.S.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MATATHUVATHUKKAL HOUSE, ARYANADU, KOTTAKKAKAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVACHAL BRANCH, POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34631 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The petitioner, a debtor of the first respondent bank, obtained Ext.P2 judgment dated 7.11.2007. In terms thereof, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- by 10.11.2007 since that was the first condition imposed by this Court in para 3 of that judgment. According to him, he could not remit the balance amount because when he went to the bank after remitting the aforesaid amount, the bank demanded a huge amount contrary to the submission made by it before this Court as recorded in Ext.P2. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the learned counsel for the bank had then submitted that an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs plus expenses was still due from the petitioner. This, according to the bank, was an erroneous submission on facts. Whatever that be, the first among the four instalments, as per para 3 (2) of Ext.P2, was due on 1.1.2008. If there was any controversy between the petitioner and the bank at that point of WPC.34631/08 Page numbers time, the petitioner could have very well moved for further clarificatory orders on the basis of Ext.P2 and it will be too late in the day, on 27.11.2008, for me to issue any judgment interpolating the last sentence in para 3 (3) of Ext.P2 judgment, whereby, the bank was entitled to proceed without further notice to the petitioner, on default of making payments on the basis of that judgment. It is also submitted that there appears to be an error on Ext.P2 and the bank is taking steps to seek review of the judgment. Whatever that be, I am clear in my mind that any confusion generated between the parties is no ground for a second visit to this Court, for the petitioner to seek the extraordinary visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, preserving the rights, if any, available to the petitioner for remedy in relation to Ext.P2 judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.