IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8199 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.KUTTIMALU, AGED 78, W/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT ULLASSERY HOUSE, P.O.ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 312. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTHERN TRADE TOWER, PUSHPA JN., FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA PARAPPANANGADI BRANCH, THAPPY'S TOWER, COURT ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303. BY ADV SRI K JAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 8199 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a debtor of the second respondent. Ext.P2 possession notice was issued by the first respondent following issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) raising a demand of Rs.4,92,198/- as on 31.5.2007 with future interest, incidental expenses, and costs. That led to Ext.P4 judgment being issued by this court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is continuing to enjoy the benefit of that judgment and he is making remittances in terms thereof. He now raises the issue as to whether the total outstandings shown in a later statement, Ext.P5, is in terms of the demand originally made. While it is true that Ext.P5 immediately followed Ext.P4, even before making the payment of first instalment, due under Ext.P4 judgment, it needs to be noticed that the amount of Rs.4,92,000/- noticed above was the outstanding due as on 31.5.2007. The add on rate of interest is 9.5% per annum. Securitization expenses including agency commission has also been added on. This court is not to WP(C) 8199/2009 2 sit in judgment or to adjudicate on a settlement of accounts between the parties. Since petitioner is enjoying the benefit of Ext.P4 judgment, any further grievance he has, in relation to accounting between him and the bank, is a matter to be adjudicated before the appropriate authority. That issue is hence left open and not being considered in this writ petition. No relief sought for herein could be granted by writ court. This writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the contentions. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/20/3