IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3582 of 2009(B)
1. SMT.BINDU, AGED 35 YRS,D/O.SARASWATHY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,THE HOUSING
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ANIL
For Respondent :SRI.S.SAJIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 3582 OF 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Challenging the recovery pursued by the first respondent Bank, the
petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) 12798/2006,
wherein Ext.P1 interim order was passed, whereby the coercive steps were
intercepted on condition that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- within
one month. Subsequently, during the pendency of the above Writ Petition,
the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition stating that a purchaser has
come to buy the properties of the petitioner offered as security to the
respondent Bank and that the sale consideration payable by the said
person shall be remitted to the Bank for clearing the entire liability. It was
in the said circumstance that an order was passed by this Court in the
present Writ Petition on 09.02.2009, directing the petitioner to implead the
aforesaid prospective purchaser. Simultaneously, in view of the present
Writ Petition, the earlier Writ Petition, i.e., WP(C) No.12798/2006 was
dismissed, also taking note of the submission made from the part of the
respondent Bank that, the petitioner has not chosen to comply with the
condition imposed while granting the interim order in the other case.
WPC NO.3582/2009 2
2. Pursuant to the steps taken by the petitioner by filing I.A.
3010/2009, the aforesaid prospective purchaser by name Mr. Chandran
was impleaded as the additional third respondent in the present WP(C). It
is pointed out by the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Bank
that the additional third respondent appeared before this Court and
submitted that he was ready and willing to purchase the property and that
the sale consideration could be remitted to the first respondent Bank. But it
is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid prospective purchaser, i.e., the additional third respondent has
withdrawn from the commitment and that he is not interested to purchase
the property.
3. Considering the sequence of events, this Court does not find it
necessary to keep the above proceedings pending before this Court any
further. Absolutely no tenable ground is brought out to call for interference.
The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc