IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1346 of 2010(P) ------------------------- CMP.3870/2009 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- A.V.PRASANTH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.GURUJI ENTERPRISES, KALATHARA VEEDU, GM NAGAR, MANIKANTESWARAM, NETTAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S. BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1346 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2009 IN W.P.(C) 30040/2009 EXT.P2 : THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS ON 04.01.2010 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2010 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 31.01.2010 IN MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P4(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 31.01.2010 IN MANORAMA DAILY. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1346 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the C.J.M., Thiruvananthapuram in a petition filed by the respondent Bank whereby physical possession of the premises has been ordered to be taken . The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 is very much contrary to the verdict passed by this Court as borne by Ext. P1 judgment whereby the petitioner was directed to clear the overdue amount by way of 'five' equal monthly installments so as to have the loan account regularlised with a default clause. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without any regard to the mandate under Ext.P1, proceedings were pursued by the respondent Bank which led to Ext. P3 order of the C.J.M. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that Ext P3 order happened to be passed on the basis of some misconceived idea as to the factual position. It is also assured and undertaken before this Court that the respondent Bank will of course honour Ext.P1 judgment and no further W.P.(C) No. 1346 OF 2010 2 proceedings will be taken to the contrary. 3. This being the position, the respondent Bank does not have any objection in setting aside Ext. P3 order. In the above facts and circumstances, Ex. P3 order is set aside and the undertaking given by the Bank is recorded that further proceedings against the petitioner will be only in accordance with the directions given by this Court vide Ext.P1 judgment. The submission made by the respondent Bank that no variation is intended to be given as to the re-scheduling of the loan is also recorded. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk