IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 575 of 2011(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- JANARDHANAN.U.K., S/O. LATE KARAPPUTTY, UPPUNGAL HOUSE, KADANGODE.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.60, ERUMAPETTY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-680584. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.60, SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM TUDA ROAD, THRISSUR-680609. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.575 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.7.2010 EXT.P2(a)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.9.2010. EXT.P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.10.2010 EXT.P2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.12.10 EXT.P2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.12.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.575 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 sale notice issued by the second respondent informing the petitioner that he proposes to sell a parcel of land belong to the petitioner for realisation of the amount awarded by the Arbitrator in A.R.C.No.317 of 2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main and the only ground raised in the writ petition is that the second respondent ought to have afforded the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to pay the amount in instalments. Ext.P3 sale notice discloses that it was issued in execution of an award passed by the Arbitrator. The award has attained finality. In such circumstances, the decree holder bank is entitled to attach and sell the property belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P3 sale notice issued by the second respondent cannot be said to be illegal. That apart, though this Court had by interim order passed on 7.1.2011 while admitting the writ petition stayed the confirmation of sale held pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner has not deposited the second instalment of Rs.75,000/- directed to be paid as a condition for granting the stay. From the very conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that he is only interested in postponing the sale and his offer W.P.(C) No.575 of 2011 2 to pay the amount in instalments is not a bona fide offer. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.