IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3318 of 2009() ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------- VINCENT, AGED 30, S/O. RAJAPPAN , MATHA COTTAGE, KANDALA KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVNANTHPURAM. 2. M.SHAJAHAN, MOHAMMED VILASAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOR VILLAGE. 3. NAZEEMA BEEVI, W/O. SHAJAGHN, RESIDING AT DO. 4. THE MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF OF INDIA, PEROORKADA BRANCH, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTAPURAM. R1, R4 BY ADV.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3318 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner states that he purchased an item of property from the second respondent, who had availed a loan from the 4th respondent. The third respondent was the guarantor. According to the petitioner, the amounts credited in the name of the second respondent and evidenced by Ext.P4 are remittances made by him, going by the endorsements available at the top of those counter foils. It is not for this Court to go into any examination as to those endorsements. At any rate, those endorsements show that in so far as the bank is concerned, they received the amount as due from Shajahan. The petitioner states that now, a conspiracy has been hatched up between respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent bank, under which, the second respondent is demanding a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- over and above the amount covered by Ext.P2 and the agreement between the parties is that the petitioner will pay off the loan amount. It is also the WPC.3318/09 Page numbers petitioner's contention, as stated by the learned counsel, that the bank is aiding the second respondent by taking the stand that it would not release the documents to the petitioner. These are not matters which require any consideration in writ jurisdiction and also I am not impressed by the petitioner's submission that he may be permitted to pay off the remaining outstandings in instalments. This writ petition is, hence, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies either before the civil court or before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, as the case may be. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.