Dismissed

K.P.P.Fathima v. the Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala HC26 Mar 2010WP(C)/8942/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings for a housing loan. Counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to correct defects and implead the relevant party. The Court granted permission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to correct defects and implead the concerned party was granted.

K.P.P.Fathima Vs the Kerala State Housing Board — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8942 of 2010(P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

KORAMBAYIL PADINHARE PURAYIL FATHIMA, D/O.ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'FATHIMA MANZIL', PAPPINISSERY P.O., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD LTD., KAOSAR COMPLEX, CALTEX, KANNUR-2.

¶14

STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶17

¶18

WP(C) No. 8942 of 2010

¶19

Dated, this the 26^th day of March, 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings as borne by Exts.P1 and P2 seeking to realize the amount stated as due from the petitioner. The petitioner had availed a loan for constructing a house in the property in question, creating mortgage in favour of the first respondent the Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram and it is stated as at the instance of the first respondent, that the second respondent has issued Exts.P1 and P2. It is also the case of the petitioner that some payments have been effected as borne by Exts.P4 and P5.

¶22

The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Board submits that Exts.P1 to P5 pertain to some liability to the “KSFE Ltd”. and the first respondent is not involved in any action or issue projected in the Writ Petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some inadvertent mistake has occurred in drafting the Writ Petition and also in producing the relevant records. Accordingly, permission of this Court is sought for to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to challenge the

¶24

WP(C) No.8942/2010

¶25

¶26

impugned proceedings by effecting necessary corrections and impleading the concerned party. Permission is granted and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶28

dnc

K.P.P.Fathima v. the Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.P.Fathima v. the Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Ors.

Mohamedkunhi Vs the Canara Bank

B.Suriakumar Vs the General Manager and Others

Jimmy Joseph Vs Dtc Kozhikode

Sri.M.K.Ummer Vs the Intelligence Officer (Ib) and Others

Mr.Mijulal Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ekm.