IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4468 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 70, S/O.AMMINIAMMA, KULAVIL HOUSE, PATHIAKKARA AMSOM, ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, PERINTHALAMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PERINTHALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PERINTHALMANNA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4468 of 2010(G) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1099/2009/ML DT. 3.10.2009 P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF MUNSIFF COURT EA NO.204/2009 EP NO.214/2006 DT.14.12.2009 RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 4468 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. Though the first respondent has been served, he has not entered appearance. 2. The petitioner, a senior citizen aged 71 years has filed this writ petition for an order directing the first respondent to return the documents of title deposited by him for availing a loan. It is contended that though by Ext.P1 letter dated 3.10.2009, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Perinthalmanna had directed the Secretary of the first respondent society to return the document of title to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the loan was closed on 6.1.2009, till date the document of title has not been returned to him. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 27.9.2010 after service of notice, this Court passed the following order: “The first respondent shall file an affidavit as to whether the petitioner had already closed the loan account and if so, what is the further impediment in returning the title WP (C) No. 4468 of 2011 2 deeds. An affidavit touching the said aspects shall be filed within a period of two weeks”. Though nearly one year has passed thereafter, the first respondent has not sworn to an affidavit as directed by this Court. The first respondent has also not chosen to enter appearance and resist the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. The petitioner's averment that the loan account was closed on 6.1.2009 stands uncontroverted. 3. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an order directing the first respondent to forthwith return the document of title deposited by him. I accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to return the document of title deposited by petitioner for the purpose of availing the loan, expeditiously and in any event, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall ensure that this direction is complied with. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. rkc