IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20145 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAHABUDHEEN, S/O.ABDUL WAHAB METTUVALAVU,THATHAMANGALAM,CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THATHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LTD,NO.502,THATHAMANGALM, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SALE OFFICER THATHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.502,THATHAMANGALM, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.20145 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a defaulter to the first respondent Bank. ARC.No.2983/02 was filed by the Bank, which resulted in Ext.P1 ex-parte award. Petitioners filed Exts.P2 and P3 to set aside Ext.P1 and to condone the delay in applying for the same. Orders were not passed and that lead the petitioner to file WP(c).No.18772/05. The case was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment, directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3 within 6 months. The judgment is dated 20.6.2007 and the petitioner contends that, there has not been any progress in the matter since then. In the meanwhile, in execution of the award, Ext.P5 attachment notice has been issued demanding remittance of Rs.13,70,386/-. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.20145/09 2 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that, without having passed orders on Exts.P2 and P3 in compliance with Ext.P4, further action for recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 ought not have been continued. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions confirms that orders have not still been passed on Exts.P2 and P3. According to him there was an attempt to compromise the dispute and therefore the delay has occurred. 4. Be that as it may, fact remains that orders have not been passed on Exts.P2 and P3 as directed by this court. If that be so, further action pursuant to Ext.P1 ought not have been continued. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to comply with Ext.P4 judgment at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be deferred. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.20145/09 3