IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 23119 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- LEENA, W/O. LONAPPAN, CHILLAI HOUSE, POTTA DESOM, POTTA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 55, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. THE ARBITRATOR CUM SALE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,55 IRINJALAKUDA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.23119 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.6.2006 from the first respondent bank. The first respondent was constrained to take steps for realisation of the amount outstanding towards the said loan account on account of the continued failure on the part of the petitioner in effecting repayment. As part of such steps Ext.P1 auction notice was served on the petitioner. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. While admitting this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 30.7.2008 as follows:- “There will be an interim order that the impugned sale shall not be confirmed if the petitioner deposits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, payable on or before the 15th of every month commencing from August, 2008.” 2. When this matter is taken up today, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent bank submitted that despite the lapse of more than two years the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions in the interim order dated 30.7.2008 and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. The said submission made on behalf of the first respondent cannot be said to be without any substance. Being a person who failed to comply with the interim order WP(C).No.23119/2008 2 the petitioner is not actually deserving any relief in this writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the auction conducted pursuant to Ext.P1, sale was confirmed only in favour of the first respondent. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is now prepared to clear the entire arrears outstanding as on today and other incidental charges and she may be given an opportunity to approach the first respondent and make request for re-conveyance. Considering the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent by filing a proper petition carrying an undertaking to comply with the conditions put forth by the first respondent bank as a condition for re- conveyance, in case the first respondent accepts her offer. In case the petitioner submits such a representation carrying such an undertaking it will only be appropriate for the second respondent to consider the same taking into account the fact that the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P1 ultimately resulted in confirmation of the sale only in favour of the bank and also acknowledging the position that securing the amount for closing the loan account should be its aim and object. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS