IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21690 of 2007(F)
1. SHAJI.S.NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===================
W.P.(C) NO.21690 OF 2007 F
===================
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayers made in this writ petition are:
a. Call for records leading to Ext.P7 and issue a writ of
prohibition restraining the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s
Court, Alappuzha not to proceed ahead with C.M.P.
No.2658/07.
b. Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order restraining the Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Alappuzha not to proceed ahead with
the eviction of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7.
These two prayers have become infructuous. This is for the
reason that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha has already
passed order under Section 14 of the Act as early as on 19/7/07
and that order has become final in so far as the petitioner is
concerned and hence the 1st prayer cannot be granted.
2. In so far as the 2nd prayer is concerned, in pursuance
to the order dated 19/7/07, possession of the mortgaged
property has already been taken over as early as on 5/9/07.
Thus, in view of this, the writ petition practically has become
infructuous.
WPC No.21690/07
: 2 :
3. However, the petitioner has filed IA No.15626/07,
where he seeks permission for selling of the mortgaged property
within 8 months. By this, what the petitioner intends to achieve
is an order from this court to defer further proceedings for eight
months. Learned counsel for the Bank points out that this
request made by the petitioner lacks bonafides.
4. Making reference to Ext.R1(a) letter submitted by the
petitioner as early as on 27/4/06, it is pointed out that the
petitioner had sought time only till 15th of November 2006 for
disposal of the property and liquidate the liability. This has not
been done by the petitioner. It is also stated that on an earlier
occasion, petitioner had filed writ petition as WP(C) No.11433/06
challenging the proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, in which a conditional order of stay was passed
requiring the petitioner to remit Rs.4,00,000/-. It is pointed out
that this order was not complied with. On these reasons, the
Bank contends that there is absolutely no bonafides in the
request now made by the petitioner.
WPC No.21690/07
: 3 :
5. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to agree with
the counsel for the respondent. As already noticed, the writ
petition has practically become infructuous. As far as the present
request of the petitioner for deferring the proceedings by 8
months is concerned, on facts, I am satisfied that there is no
bonafides in the request. Petitioner had all the time from April,
2006, and he very well knew that proceedings will be continued.
Till date, he has not made any such payment and there is no
bonafides at all in the request now made by the petitioner. Added
to all this, is the default he has committed in complying with the
interim order that was passed in W.P.(C)No.11433 of 2006.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the writ petition
does not merit consideration.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp