IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1225 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANKARAN, VAZHAVALAPPIL VEEDU, MANDAMKAVU.P.O, NADUVANNOOR, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SOUMINI, W/O. SANKARAN, VAZHAVALAPPIL VEEDU, MANDAMKAVU.P.O, NADUVANNOOR, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1635, DISTRICT BRANCH, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2009-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Adv.Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan appears for the first respondent. Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The first petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent. Default in repayment led to an arbitration award. That was put in execution in 2007. The property of the petitioners is listed for sale. The plea of the petitioners for adjourning the sale to facilitate them to pay the amounts even by way of instalments is a matter to be decided upon by the second respondent with the consent of the first respondent. If the petitioners make appropriate payment, the second respondent would consider WP(C)1225/2009 -: 2 :- adjourning the sale to facilitate payment of the outstandings. For that, any direction of the writ court is not necessary because, the grant of instalment facility by the writ court cannot be issued merely to override statutory proceedings. The case in hand shows that the loan was availed in 2000 and in 2008, the mere filing of Ext.P4 representation should not generate the issuance of a writ. Hence, this writ petition is closed leaving the petitioners opportunity to move the second respondent and the first respondent for appropriate time frame to liquidate the outstandings as may be agreed upon by the first respondent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/150109