IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19646 of 2009(A)
1. MATHEW, S/O.OOMMEN, AGED 69,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER,
3. RAJAN P.OOMMEN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.19646 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 sale deed of 1998, he
purchasd the property mentioned therein from the 3rd respondent.
It is stated that thereafter the petitioner initiated a rent control
proceedings against the 3rd respondent, which resulted in an order
of eviction, in R.C.P. No.7/2000. The petitioner thereafter filed E.P.
No.56/2007, where the 1st respondent Bank filed E.A.No.117/2007
stating that the subject matter of the Execution Petition was a
property mortgaged to the Bank. It was also stated that the Bank
had already obtained an award in its favour in A.R.C. No.86/01.
2. Irrespective of the aforesaid contentions raised,
according to the petitioner, E.A.No.117/07 was rejected by the
Execution Court. The petitioner, now submits that by Ext.P2, the
Bank has proceeded to sell the property in question. It is stated that
thereupon, the petitioner filed WP(C) No26443/2008 resulting in
Ext.P3 judgment. According to the petitioner, in pursuance thereof,
the 3rd respondent, the previous land lord, who mortaged the
property, filed Ext.P4 application before the respondent Bank on
WP(C) No.19646/2009
-2-
11/03/2009 claiming that he be given the benefit of One Time
Settlement Scheme, which was implemented by the Bank. It is
stated that if the Bank allows the request, the petitioner will
liquidate the liability on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
3. In this writ petition, what the petitioner complains is that
the Bank has not considered Ext.P4 application filed by the 3rd
respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank points
out that in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioner
ought to have made a partial payment, and that the period of the
Scheme has expired on 31/03/2009.
4. Going by the date given in Ext.P4, the same was made on
11/03/2009. Therefore, before the period of expiry of the Scheme,
if a valid application was received from the 3rd respondent, there is
no reason why the same shall not be considered. Therefore, I direct
the Bank to consider Ext.P4, if the same was validly made, that too
within the validity period of the Scheme. If so, orders shall be
passed and communicated to the parties within two weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg