IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7065 of 2009(C)
1. P.SAYED MOHAMED RAWTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, SENIOR INSPECTOR
4. MUVATTUPUZHA AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE
5. THE CO-OP ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G)
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 7065 OF 2009 (C)
=====================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner wants to get a sale conducted by the 3rd respondent
as early as on 2/2/2008 set aside at this distance of time.
2. Petitioner is a defaulter to the 4th respondent. On an
earlier occasion, petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ
petition as WP(C) No.12417/07. That writ petition was disposed of
by Ext.P2 judgment directing the petitioner to discharge the liability
in instalments. That judgment was not complied with, as a result of
which, sale proceedings were initiated culminating in the sale of the
mortgaged property, which was conducted on 2/2/2008 when the
Bank purchased the same.
3. It is stated that subsequently, Ext.P4 application was
filed on 29th of February, 2008 seeking to have the sale set aside
and that by Ext.P6 dated 31/3/2008, petitioner was informed that
the name of the Bank shown in Ext.P4 was wrong and the petitioner
had not availed of any loan from the Bank which was shown as
respondent in Ext.P4. It is stated that on its receipt, the name of
the Bank was corrected by submitting Ext.P7. What the petitioner
WPC 7065/09
:2 :
now seeks is a direction to consider Ext.P4, as corrected by Ext.P7.
4. As already noticed, the sale took place as early as on
2/2/2008. Ext.P4 application is dated 29th of February, 2008 and by
Ext.P6 dated 31/3/2008, petitioner was informed about the mistake
allegedly committed in Ext.P4. Reply to Ext.P6 is Ext.P7, where
the petitioner says that the name of the Bank was corrected by
him. However, what is to be noticed is that Ext.P7 was given by
the petitioner only on 31st of May, 2008, which is two months after
the receipt of Ext.P6. Therefore, if time for making the application
to set aside is to be counted from the date of Ext.P7, the same is
made beyond the permitted 30 days and hence is inordinately
delayed.
5. Secondly, there is absolutely no bonafides in the prayer
now made in as much as there was inordinate delay on the part of
the petitioner in replying to Ext.P6. For these reasons, I feel the
petitioner’s request lack bonafides and this Court will not be
justified in interfering with the same.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp