IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23476 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BAIJU, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, ERATTAKADAVA VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ARBITRATION-CUM-SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THE QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM DT. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO.Q-960, KOLLAM DT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., MAIN BRANCH, KOLLAM DT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23476 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P16, by which the mortgaged properties is scheduled to be auctioned on 18/8/2009. 2. On 14/11/99, mortgaging 24.5 cents of property belonging to the petitioner's mother, he availed of a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the respondent Bank. Default was committed and in ARC 92/02, award favourable to the Bank was rendered by the 1st respondent. It is stated that in 2002 itself, proceedings were initiated and at that stage, it would appear that the petitioner's mother approached this Court by filing OP No. 5983/03. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, where dealing with the complaint of the petitioner that she was not served with a copy of the award, award was ordered to be furnished and proceedings were ordered to be suspended in order to enable the petitioner therein to avail of her remedies against the award. 3. Although Ext.P4 award was served on the petitioner's WPC 23476/09 :2 : mother, the matter was not pursued as allowed in Ext.P3 judgment. Neither did the petitioner's mother liquidate the liability. Recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P5 notice issued on 16/2/2006 and then the petitioner's mother submitted Ext.P6 representation. 4. Subsequently, petitioner's mother approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.11929/06. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing consideration of her aforesaid representation. In pursuance to the said judgment, the matter was considered and Ext.P8 was issued quantifying the liabilities at Rs.5,89,962/- and petitioner's mother was allowed to pay the amount in 10 equal monthly instalments. 5. Petitioner states that his mother paid an amount of Rs.2,94,982 covered by Exts.P9 to P13 receipts. Thus, admittedly out of 10 instalments, only five were paid and therefore the liability was not fully discharged. Again, by Ext.P14 notice issued on 25/5/2007, recovery proceeding were initiated and at that stage again the petitioner's mother approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.20112/07. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment, directing that if the petitioner therein WPC 23476/09 :3 : liquidates the admitted liability any dispute as to discharge satisfaction and execution of the award can be decided before the Sale Officer. It was further directed that if such a dispute was raised, the same will be disposed of. The direction herein was also not complied with and it is stated that the mother expired on 15/8/2008. Now recovery proceedings are again continued by issuing Ext.P16 and it is this notice, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Admittedly, liability has not been discharged. Award rendered in ARC 92/02 has not been challenged and has become final. Instalment facility granted by the Bank has not been complied with and the direction in Ext.P15 judgment also has not been complied with. It is despite all this when the sale is to take place tomorrow, this writ petition is moved today and that too in the afternoon. On the above facts, I am satisfied that there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings and this writ petition is an abuse of court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp