IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26251 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PUSHPAVATHI, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR-1. 2. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR-1. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ, R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.26251 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 20th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan from the second respondent bank. Chronic default in repayment made the bank to initiate appropriate proceedings. Earlier, challenging the steps initiated by the bank for realisation of the amount due, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5479 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. Failure to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 judgment resulted in auction of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner having an extent of 2½ cents comprised in Survey No.348/1 of Mattathur Village and the sale was subsequently confirmed in favour of the bank on 17.9.2009. Now, the petitioner submits that one more opportunity may be granted to her to pay off the debt and get release of her property. Obviously, failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 has resulted in auction and subsequent confirmation of sale of immovable property belonging to the petitioner. However, it is evident that the sale was confirmed in favour of the second respondent bank. Considering the fact that it was confirmed in favour of the bank, I am of the opinion that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the bank requesting for re-conveyance after WP(C).No.26251/2010 2 making a substantial amount. In case the petitioner pays a substantial amount and makes a request to the second respondent to re-convey the property, it is a matter which can be considered by the second respondent. The loan was availed as early as on 3.7.1999 and as regards the bank the entire proceedings have already been concluded. However, in the circumstances, in order to enable the second respondent bank to consider the request for re-conveyance, the petitioner has to make a substantial payment. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on effecting such payment, it will be open to the petitioner to file a detailed representation with an undertaking to effect payment of the amount quantified by the second respondent bank and in which eventuality it will only be appropriate for the second respondent bank to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS