IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33056 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN- KUNJU, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU,VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) 2. KASIM SHAFI S/O. OSNAR KUNJU CHEKKALA VILAKATHU VEEDU, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAKKELA D/O.KHADIJA BEEVI PALLIVILAKATHU VEEDU, EDAVA DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN(B/O) FOR R1 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.33056 OF 2008 (I) ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he has certain rights over an item of property against which distress proceedings are initiated at the instance of the first respondent bank and that no security could have been created in view of the decree in O.S.No.276/1998. The matter is essentially, allegations and counter allegations between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. When this matter came up for consideration, on 10-11-2008, it was ordered that if either among the petitioner or respondents 2 and 3 pays off the outstandings, the bank would submit all documents before the Civil Court where the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are litigating. On 18-11-2008, respondents 2 and 3 submitted that they would settle the transaction. Again, on 3-12-2008, the same submission was repeated and recorded. Until now, no deposit is made. Today, the W.P.(C) No.33056/2008 - 2 - learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 states that his clients have not responded in spite of a letter. Obviously, parties are not willing to proceed with this case. This writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to litigate inter se. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/20/12 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.