IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6860 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JITHENDRAKUMAR.N., S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN.K. NAMBIAKATHU HOUSE, KARALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARALAM BRANCH, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, NSS KARAYOGAM BUILDING, KARALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKKUDA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARALAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 6860 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed of a PMRY loan from the respondent bank in 1999. Default was committed and recovery proceedings were initiated. It is stated that part of the amount has been recovered by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings as well. It is stated that following Ext.P5 judgment of this court, the respondents have now issued Ext.P6 statement of account. According to the Petitioner, the quantification of the liability as reflected in Ext.P6 is incorrect and therefore the Petitioner submits that he has made Ext.P7 objection before the first respondent. In this writ Petition what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the first respondent to consider the objection raised in Ext.P7 and reconsider Edxt.P6. WP(c).No.6860/09 /2/ 2. I heard the counsel appearing for the respondent Bank who argued that the statement of account furnished is accurate. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has a complaint regarding the accuracy of Ext.P6. It is only appropriate that the Bank considers his objection and decides whether there is any substance in the complaint. 3. It will be open to the Petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ Petition before the first respondent in which case, the first respondent shall reconsider Ext.P6 in the light of Ext.P7 and if necessary determine the amount that is due. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is clarified that the instalment facility as ordered in Ext.P5 judgment is not intended to be diluted or varied by this judgment and it will be the obligation of the petitioner to continue payment as ordered therein. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.6860/09 /2/ vi/ WP(c).No.6860/09 /2/