Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35908/2019 of ANEESH R Vs CORPORATON BANK on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35908 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER/S: ANEESH R AGED 36 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAKURUP, LAKSMIVILLA VEEDU, MUTTAPALAM, PANAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.35908 OF 2019(K)
PETITIONER/S:
ANEESH RAGED 36 YEARSS/O.RAVEENDRAKURUP, LAKSMIVILLA VEEDU, MUTTAPALAM, PANAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695145
BY ADV. SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
BY SC FOR R1 & R2 SRI.MATHEW A.KUZHALNADAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Court by Ext.P1 judgment in W.P (C) No.25053 of2019 dated 20.9.2019, permitted the petitioner to pay offthe outstanding amount of Rs.38,44,893/- as on 19.9.2019to the 1[st]respondent-Bank in 12 equal monthlyinstallments. It was made clear that the directions in thejudgment were peremptory in nature and that thepetitioner will have to comply with the directionsmeticulously, and further that no request for extension ormodification would be permitted, save in exceptionalcircumstances and that if the petitioner fails to comply withthe directions, he would lose the benefit of the judgment.
2. The petitioner has now approached this Court,inter alia, contending that the petitioner was unable to payoff the amounts as directed in Ext.P1 judgment and that hewould pay Rs.10 lakh by 30.12.2019 and 10.1.2020.However, the petitioner has received Ext.P2 notice from the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief JudicialMagistrate Court, Varkala stating that the petitioner'sproperty would be taken into possession at 2.30 p.m on30.12.2019. Thus, the petitioner seeks for furtherenlargement of time granted in Ext.P1 judgment.
3. This Court had categorically directed thepetitioner to comply with the conditions mentioned inparagraph 9 of the judgment, failing which the benefitgranted to him would stand withdrawn and that thepetitioner would not be granted extensions ormodifications, save in exceptional circumstances.
4. Ext.P1 judgment stares at the petitioner. The findingsin the judgment operate as res judicata. I do not find anyexceptional circumstances made out by the petitionersubsequent to Ext.P1 judgment making out a fresh causeof action to file this writ petition. The petitioner is legallybound to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P1judgment, and not to file a fresh writ petition seekingfurther enlargement of time. The writ petition is devoid ofany merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, thedismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the WP(C).No.35908 OF 2019
right of the petitioner in seeking enlargement of the timeschedule already fixed in W.P (C ) No.25053/2019, if soadvised.
ma
Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
P.S to Judge
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.25053/2019
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER