IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11288 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.ABOOBACKER, UNDAPARA HOUSE, ATTUKAL, PANAYAMATTOM, NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAIN BRANCH, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001. SC SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).11288/2011 ....................... Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers. (i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to return the document of the title and other docuements in respect of the property in Sy.No.1895/3/4 and 1895/3/5 in Panavoor Village belonging to the petitioner which is offered as security for the loan transaction with the respondents (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to receive the dues under Ext.P4 from the petitioner after providing him the benefits of the One Time Settlement Scheme of the respondents. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank as well. W.P.(C).11288/2011 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the decree passed by the Trial Court, the amount due under the decree has already been satisfied. The respondents contend that eventhough the petitioner has substantially satisfied the decree passed by the Trial Court, there remains some dispute regarding the rate of interest, which in fact has became final, pursuant to Ext.P4 verdict passed by this Court on 20th July, 2010 in A.S.55/1995, whereby some more amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge Ext.P4 and the only relief now pressed before this Court is with regard to the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of 'One Time Settlement Scheme' and to have the title deeds returned on satisfying the amount, so to be fixed by the Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that if at all the petitioner is desirous of having some or other relief, it is for the petitioner to approach the Bank and settle the matter. W.P.(C).11288/2011 3 In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to approach the Bank for some or other concessions and to have the title deeds returned. On approaching the Bank as aforesaid, the claim shall be considered and the matter shall be finalised, at the discretion of the Bank, as expeditiously as possible. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs