IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20058 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUJATHA, W/O. SASANKAN, KOLATHERITHARA, MANNOM, PARUR. BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, KANAYANNOOR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, PALARIVATTOM. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, KUZHUPPALLY, NARAKKAL. 3. SUB REGISTRAR, EDAVANAKKAD. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20058 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.6.25 lakhs from the 1st respondent on 26/11/1997 offering 5 cents of land in Survey No.755/3, Re-survey No.205/1 of Edavanakkad Village and 8.094 cents of land in Survey No.274/1 (Resurvey No.145/4) of Elankunnapuzha Village as security. Default was committed, and ultimately the properties were sold and the Bank itself purchased the same. 2. The petitioner got the sale set aside by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment rendered in WP(C) No.13109/2008, on condition that the petitioner remits the amount within 45 days. It is stated that in compliance with the said direction, full amount has been paid and Ext.P2 certificate was issued by the Bank acknowledging payment in satisfaction of their claims. It is stated that producing Exts.P1 & P2, the petitioner requested respondents 2 & 3 to make corrections in their records. But, however, the same is declined to WP(C) No.20058/2009 -2- be accepted for the reason that intimation has not been received from the High Court. 3. In my view, it was unnecessary, for the reason that if the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.13109/2008 referred to above, there is no reason, why that document should not be accepted and needful done on that basis. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to accept certified copy of the judgment referred to above from the petitioner and do the needful in the matter, if the said respondent is satisfied that the conditions laid down therein are duly complied with. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg