The Court dismissed two successive writ petitions filed by the same petitioner seeking re-conveyance of a bank-decree-sale property, noting the petitions were filed to circumvent court rules despite the petitioner's uncooperative conduct.
Petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000/- costs to HCSLC; petitions dismissed; no relief granted for re-conveyance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 13247 of 2011(E)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
C.RAVINDRAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, THONIKKAD PARAMBA, NEAR PARAPPURAM TEMPLE, ARAKKINAR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 028.
BY ADV. MR. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALAYAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE.
ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN
MR. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14263 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
W.P (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011
Dated, this the 6th June , 2011
JUDGMENT
Both these writ petitions have been filed by the very same person, seeking for a direction to re-convey the property, which was purchased by the respondent Bank in the course of execution of a decree (on getting necessary permission from the concerned Civil Court); stating that, the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the amount due under the loan transaction. Filing of the former writ petition is suppressed in the latter writ petition, which has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P7 representation, which substantially contains almost the same or similar relief.
“The petitioner in both these cases is one and the same person, who is stated as aged '52' in the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 13247 of 2011, while in the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) 14263 of 2011, it is stated that he aged '70'. Obviously, the signature of the
W.P. (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011
: 2 :
party is entirely different in both the cases. The petitioner shall appear before this Court on 06.06.2011”.
Today, the petitioner is present before this Court with his son Prasul. The two different learned counsel appearing for the same petitioner in the two different cases and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank are also present.
W.P. (C) Nos. 13247 & 14263 of 2011
: 3 :
to proceed with further steps. However, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in these writ petitions.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed with a total cost of Rs, 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), which has to be remitted before the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of two weeks.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
C.RAVINDRAN
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
