High Court of KeralaWP(C)/16733/2008closed

Sreeja Babu v. K.F.C

2015-07-203 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015/29TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 16733 of 2008 (P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- SREEJA BABU, W/O.P.BABU, UDAYANTA KIZHAKKATHIL, IVERKALA, PUTHANAMBALAM KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AUTHORISED OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE AT A.G.C. COMPLEX, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-1.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM.

* ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED

4. R.V.HARISH, ANJALI, MANAYILKULANGARA, THIRUMALLA VARAM, KOLLAM.

ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01-07-08 IN IA.7397/2008 R1 BY SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 16733 of 2008 (P) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2/4/05 FOR 20 CENTS OF LAND P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT VOUCHER DATED 30/4/2002 P3 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT VOUCHER DATED 31/3/2003 P4 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT VOUCHER DATED 9/8/2004 P5 - TPHOTO COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER P6PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 DATED 11/10/2007 P7TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY R1 DATED 18/3/2008 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 16733 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 demand made by the 1st respondent and the sale notice issued at Ext.P7. The sale itself was concluded in favour of the additional 4th respondent. The petitioner does not challenge the sale as such in the above writ petition. The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner is ready to pay the amounts remaining defaulted as per the loan account on a One Time Settlement Scheme basis. However, that no longer survives since the sale itself has been effected, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge