IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7065 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.SAYED MOHAMED RAWTHER, MULACKAL VEEDU, RAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OP DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETEIS, ERNAKULAM. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ANICAD S.C.B GROUP, MUVATTUPUZHA 4. MUVATTUPUZHA AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. H. W.33, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE CO-OP ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G) MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7065 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner wants to get a sale conducted by the 3rd respondent as early as on 2/2/2008 set aside at this distance of time. 2. Petitioner is a defaulter to the 4th respondent. On an earlier occasion, petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition as WP(C) No.12417/07. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the petitioner to discharge the liability in instalments. That judgment was not complied with, as a result of which, sale proceedings were initiated culminating in the sale of the mortgaged property, which was conducted on 2/2/2008 when the Bank purchased the same. 3. It is stated that subsequently, Ext.P4 application was filed on 29th of February, 2008 seeking to have the sale set aside and that by Ext.P6 dated 31/3/2008, petitioner was informed that the name of the Bank shown in Ext.P4 was wrong and the petitioner had not availed of any loan from the Bank which was shown as respondent in Ext.P4. It is stated that on its receipt, the name of the Bank was corrected by submitting Ext.P7. What the petitioner WPC 7065/09 :2 : now seeks is a direction to consider Ext.P4, as corrected by Ext.P7. 4. As already noticed, the sale took place as early as on 2/2/2008. Ext.P4 application is dated 29th of February, 2008 and by Ext.P6 dated 31/3/2008, petitioner was informed about the mistake allegedly committed in Ext.P4. Reply to Ext.P6 is Ext.P7, where the petitioner says that the name of the Bank was corrected by him. However, what is to be noticed is that Ext.P7 was given by the petitioner only on 31st of May, 2008, which is two months after the receipt of Ext.P6. Therefore, if time for making the application to set aside is to be counted from the date of Ext.P7, the same is made beyond the permitted 30 days and hence is inordinately delayed. 5. Secondly, there is absolutely no bonafides in the prayer now made in as much as there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in replying to Ext.P6. For these reasons, I feel the petitioner's request lack bonafides and this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp