IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8220 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- K.THULASI, AGED 61, S/O.LATE RAMAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.CHITTOOR AGENCY, STADIUM BUILDING, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT CHITTOOR HOUSE, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. UCO BANK, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM BRANCH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM-691001. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8220 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court seeking for extending 'OTS' facility, so as to enable the petitioner to close the loan account with the respondent Bank . 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his wife had availed a housing loan as well as a business loan from the respondent Bank by creating security interest over the property in question, but repayment could not be effected as promised due to some unforeseen circumstances. After taking earnest efforts, the petitioner has remitted a substantial portion of the loan amount and then approached the Bank for extending the benefit of 'OTS' by filing Ext.P1 representation, which is sought to be considered and finalised . 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the course of further proceedings as above, Ext. P1 was W.P.(C) No. 8220 OF 2011 2 considered and the petitioner was directed to submit a revised proposal, enhancing the amount offered from the part of the petitioner so as to have it considered and to extend the relief to the possible extent. In tune with the said direction, the petitioner has already preferred a revised proposal before the Bank and that the petitioner would like to pursue the said matter . In the said circumstance, no orders are necessary for the time being. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Bank as mentioned herein before. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk