IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31285 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.8/09 IN EP.72/06 IN OS.20/2003 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K. NASIMUDHEEN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT C.H. HOUSE, NEAR KAMALIA U.P. SCHOOL, IRIKKUR. 2. M.D. KUNHAMINA, W/O. NASIMUDHEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT C.H. HOUSE, NEAR KAMALIA U.P. SCHOOL, IRIKKUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.M.A.SULFIA SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CANAR BANK IRIKKUR. 2. REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, KANNUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31285 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.72 of 2006 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Sub court, Payyannur. The decree passed was in a suit for money by sale of the mortgaged property. Petitioners had availed two loans, one a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for house construction, and another Rs.25,000/- for agricultural purpose from the 1st respondent bank. In default of payment of the loan, the suit was instituted, and, later, a decree was passed in favour of the respondent bank. In execution of that decree, the mortgaged property is now proceeded for sale. At this stage, petitioners/judgment debtors have filed this writ petition canvassing a case that they are prepared to settle the matter with the bank and an opportunity be extended to have such settlement. Some other grounds are also canvassed at the time of hearing that the entire mortgaged property need not WPC.31285/09 2 be sold to satisfy the decree debt as a portion of that property would be sufficient to discharge such debt. Decree having been passed by sale of the mortgaged property, the contentions so advanced, if at all entertainable, should have been taken in the trial of the suit before a decree had been passed as contemplated under Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the CPC. Then, with respect to the chances for settlement canvassed by the petitioners, for that purpose, the visitorial jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked. It is open to the petitioners to approach the bank directly and settle the liability arising under the decree debt. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp