Failure to comply with repayment conditions negates entitlement to further relief in mortgage disputes.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, along with his wife, availed a mortgage loan from the respondent bank. The residential property of the petitioner was offered a security for repayment of the loan. According to the petitioner, on account of financial stringency, the petitioner could not repay the loan amount in time. The bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, and obtained an award determining the liability of the petitioner. In execution, the mortgaged property of the petitioner was brought to sale, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.30261 of 2023. This Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.30261 of 2023, granting fifteen installments for payment of the overdue amount. The petitioner failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C)No.30261 of 2023. Thereafter, the property of the petitioner was sold, and the bank itself purchased the property. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for setting aside the sale. The Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Socieities and others did not find any illegality in the proceedings conducted by the Bank/Sale Officer and yet passed an order permitting the petitioner to clear off the liability within 200 days from the date of the order. The petitioner is now again before this Court seeking a direction that further time be granted to the petitioner to clear the liability.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. It is submitted that, while considering the application for setting aside the sale, the petitioner was granted 200 days’ time to settle the liability. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not utilise the opportunity to clear the liability with the respondent bank. It is also submitted that the condition imposed by this Court in the interim order dated 17.11.2025 has not been complied with till date.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in reply, that as against the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) directed to be paid in terms of the interim order dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief from this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the respondent bank is right in contending that, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief.

5. On 17.11.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:

“The petitioner is essentially before this Court seeking extension of time granted by Exhibit P4 order dated 21.05.2025, which granted 200 days time to the petitioner to sell his property by way of private sale and remit the entire dues to the bank.

2. Prima facie, I find no illegality in Exhibit P4 order. Despite finding no ground under Rule 83 of the Kerala Cooperative Society Rules, 1969 to set aside the sale, the petitioner was granted more than six months time to find a buyer for his property and to settle the liability to the bank by selling his property. However, since the relief sought for by the petitioner is only extension of time, I am of the opinion that the said request can be considered after hearing the 4^th respondent.

3. Accordingly, issue notice by speed post to the

4th respondent. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice to the 3^rd respondent dispensed with for the time being.

4. Further proceedings for confirming the sale already conducted in favour of the bank shall be deferre