IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 834 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15576/2011 dated 13/06/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- MRS.TREESA @ THRESIA,AGED 72,W/O.GEORGE, CHERIYATHARA HOUSE,DOOR NO.18/692,(OLD NO.6/931), PALLIPPURAM PO, PALLIPPURAM,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA , THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,PIN 682 301. 2. V.U.AFSAL, AGED 31, S/O.USMAN, BUSINESSMAN,VALEPPILLY HOUSE,DOOR NO.1/437 A, EDAPPALLY,THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, PIN 682 024. R1 BY SRI.A.S.P. KURUP, SC, UNION BANK OF INDIA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 834 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 13.06.2011, the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the appeal. The writ petition was filed with the prayers as follows: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the 1st respondent not to dispossess the petitioner and her family from their building bearing Pallippuram Panchayat D.No.6/93, pending disposal of OS No.463/2011 on the files of the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court Ernakulam. ii) Issue appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper from time to time for this petitioner to attain the ends of justice.” 2. The suit referred to (i.e., O.S. No.463/2011) in the prayer of the writ petition is a suit filed by the appellant herein against the very same respondents to the instant writ appeal with prayer as follows: a) Declaring document No.1188/2009 dated 29.09.2009 of the SRO Kuzhuppilly is not and intended sale deed and it is only a security for the loan availed by the plaintiff from the 1st WA No. 834 of 2011 -:2:- defendant. b) Directing the defendant's to pay the entire costs incurred for the institution and conduct of this proceedings. c) Granting such other and further reliefs which are deemed necessary in the interest of justice, as and when prayed for.” 3. The facts leading to the litigation are as follows. The appellant claims that she borrowed certain amounts from the 2nd respondent herein and executed a document No.1188/2009 dated 29/09/2009 of SRO Kuzhupilly. According to the prayer in the suit, the document though purports to be a sale deed it was never intended to be acted upon, but was only meant to be a security for the loan transaction between the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein. 4. Whatever be the merits of such a case, we do not propose to examine the same in view of the pendency of the suit and any examination of the same here would adversely affect the pending suit. It appears that the 2nd respondent availed some loan from the 1st respondent and it is asserted by the appellant herein that the 1st respondent Bank is proceeding against the WA No. 834 of 2011 -:3:- property covered by the abovementioned sale deed and therefore the instant writ petition. 5. By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. The abovementioned facts need no further explanation to demonstrate that the instant writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of this Court. We do not see any reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with cost quantified at `2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only). J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 834 of 2011 -:4:-