IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14980 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEETHA V.P., AGED 43 YEARS W/O.E.K.BALACHANDRAN, EDAPPURATHKANDY NANMINDA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/VALUATION OFFICER, KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.4362 KOZHIKODE-4. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO.OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT TRIVANDRUM. R2,R3 & R4 BY SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14980 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Petitioner availed a loan from the 1st respondent, but failed to repay. This led to recovery proceedings. Ext.P2 was issued, sometime in 2006, calling upon the petitioner to remit certain amount. He moved the Government and ultimately Ext.P4 has been issued by the Assistant Registrar stating that the transaction is seen closed way back in 2001. Though the petitioner states that if that were so, there was no reason to issue Ext.P2, I do not find that the same is inspiring, for the simple reason that the petitioner admittedly was a defaulter and by Ext.P2 all that was being offered was an opportunity to settle the transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for an opportunity to enable the petitioner to wipe off the entire outstanding and settle the transaction even by remitting such amounts as has been demanded by the 1st respondent for reconveyance of the property. That is a matter to be decided upon by the 1st respondent in its wisdom. Hence this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner moving the 1st respondent for any such repayment. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps