Failure to comply with court orders and exploitations to delay recovery proceedings are not tolerated, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

J UDGMENT

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in Re.Sy No.94/6, 94/8 and 94/10 of Mulavana Village, Kollam Taluk. He has availed a loan for Rs.40 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year 2015. Secured asset is a residential property.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is suffering from high cardiac disease and is undergoing treatment in Sree Chithira Tirunal Institute, Thiruvananthapuram. The wife of the petitioner is unemployed and all the medical expenses have to be met by the petitioner. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.43665 of 2023 challenging the proceedings against him. By Ext.P1, an interim order was passed by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 15.01.2024 and coercive proceedings stood deferred. Thereafter, since the interim order was not complied, taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] as well as Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018(1) KLT 784] , this Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.01.2024. The petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice dated 08.01.2026 by the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property pursuant to the order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C No.1645 of 2025 dated 17.10.2025. The prayers sought for in the writ petition are as follows:-

i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 and to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount towards the loan account in 48 equated monthly instalments;

ii. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and iii. Grant the costs of the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the averments in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner’s wife is unemployed is not true, as the wife of the petitioner has taken three loans and the wife has produced the salary certificate which shows that she is working as a Teacher under the Education Department, Government of Kerala. It is also a fact that the petitioner, along with his wife, has approached this Court earlier as is evident from Ext.P2. Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner was on 08.01.2026 and the petitioner has waited till the eve of taking the physical possession in approaching this Court. Moreover, the secured asset is a residential cum commercial building and the petitioner is conducting two shop rooms and two other shop rooms are rented to third parties and is getting income from that shops. The intention of the petitioner is only to delay the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. No indulgence can be granted by this Court to the petitioner.

It is a fact that the petitioner along with his wife has approached this Court during the year 2024, and by Ext.P2, this Court did not entertain the writ petition on the ground that the interim order earlier granted was not complied and taking note of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents have made available the salary slip of the petitioner’s wife showing that she is working as a Teacher in the Government of Kerala, which was submitted by the wife while taking the loan. It is seen that the petitioner’s intention is only to delay the recovery proceedings against him. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-