IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18699 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHRI.SHIJI.K.C., KARUKANATTU HOUSE, THALUMKANDAM, MANKULAM P.O., PIN-685 565. BY ADV. MR. MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALWAYE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE MS.P.V.PARVATHI MS. REENA THOMAS MR. L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 18699 OF 2009 JUDGMENT ON 03.07.2009, AN INTERIM WAS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER DEPOSITED A SUM OF RUPEES ONE LAKH WITHIN THREE WEEKS. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR CONSIDEREATION ON 30.07.2009, THE LEARED COUNSEL FOR THE BANK BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT THAT THE CONDITION IMPOSED BY THIS COURT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER. EVENTHOUGH THE MATTER CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 07.08.2009, 14.08.2009 AND ALSO TODAY, THE POSITION CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME AND THE CONDITION IS YET TO BE COMPLIED WITH. TODAY ALSO THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER. IT APPEARS THAT THE PETITIONER IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION PROJECTED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. THE WRIT PETITION IS THEREFORE DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. 21.08.2009 SD/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.18699 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT It is noticed from the proceedings that this writ petition was once dismissed for default. Subsequently MJC.No.393/2009 was filed seeking restoration, which was also dismissed for default. Further, the case was restored on the basis of MJC.No.488/2009. Even thereafter on 11.12.2009 there was default on the part of the petitioner and this court had dismissed I.A.No.15218/2009 in terms of cost. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no representation for the petitioner. In view of the above narrated prolonged history of defaults, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Since the callous nature in which the matter was pursued before this court, the respondents were put to serious prejudice and they have to incur unnecessary expenses and costs, which need be compensated reasonably. Hence the petitioner is directed to WP(C).18699/2009 2 make payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent Bank, which the respondent Bank will be entitled to collect by adding the said amount into the loan account and taking recovery steps for realisation, along with the amount due in the loan account. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).18699/2009 3