IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 9503 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNIL. T.G., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. V.H.GOPALA PANICKER, THULASIMANGALAM HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 666. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PUTHUKULAM BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER – 689 661. 2. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER – 689 661. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.P. PRADEEP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9503/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13/09/2010 UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE R.2. BANK TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 9503 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T In view of the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. But on the basis of persuasive appeals made on behalf of the petitioner, an interim stay against the dispossession of the petitioner from the property was granted, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in two instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and 28.5.2011. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking extension of time for payment, stating that the petitioner had partly complied with the conditions stipulated. Time for payment of the balance amount was extended till 25.6.2011. 2. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that, the petitioner had failed in complying 2 W.P.(C).No. 9503 of 2011 with the condition stipulated in full. 3. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested on this Court, in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/ 3 W.P.(C).No. 9503 of 2011