IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8148 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JACOB VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS, MECHERRY HOUSE, PALAPPILLY, KOOVAKATTUKUNNU P.O., MELUR VIA, CHALAKUDY. 2. MARY, W/O.VARGHESE, AGED 74 YEARS,MECHERRY HOUSE, PALAPPILLY, KOOVAKATTUKUNNU P.O., MELUR VIA, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,NO.R 312, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.R 312, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121. 3. THE PRESIDENT, IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.R 312, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 BY GP SRI K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 8148 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners availed a loan from the first respondent sometime in 2004. Following the statutory proceedings, there is a confirmed sale in favour of the bank. By that process, the relationship between the petitioner and first respondent has terminated. The mortgaged property has been purchased by the bank and sale confirmed. Relying on Circular 1 of 2009, the petitioners sought for relief in terms of that circular. The terms of that circular relate only to transactions which are ripe and where recovery proceedings are not completed. But in the case in hand, by the sale in favour of the bank, which has been confirmed, the transaction no more survives for application of Circular 1 of 2009. Yet, the bank has issued Ext.P12 stating that it is prepared to extend certain facilities. 2. Learned counsel for the bank states that all that has been done is that the bank is prepared to extend the petitioners, certain benefits and reconvey the property. This, he states, could WP(C) 8148/2009 2 be had only if the entire amounts due as on the date of sale with future interest at 12% therein is paid to the bank. 3. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the stand taken by the first respondent. Having assured myself that Circular 1 of 2009 will not apply in cases of closed transactions or in relation to transactions where the recovery has been completed, I do not find it necessary for the writ court to stand on the contents of Ext.P12, that too, of a Co-operative Society and compel it to enforce Ext.P12 in the manner in which petitioners desire to have it. In the aforesaid circumstances, refusing all other reliefs, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioners pay the entire amounts for which the sale was conducted, and 12% interest thereon from the date of sale, till the date of payment, the bank will reconvey the property as decided by it, at the expenses of the petitioners. It is also recorded that the petitioners have to make the payment before 31.3.2009 for getting the aforesaid benefit. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/20/3