Sunil vs Akathethara Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15406 Ker

W.P(C).6734/2021
                                      1


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
       THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                            WP(C) NO. 6734 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

      1      SUNIL, AGED 30 YEARS
             S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, SANKARACHAM PALAYAM, NATTUKAL P.O,
             KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 554.

      2      KANNAN, AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O. KESAVAN, KURUPPATH VEEDU, AALAMPALLATH,
             KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

      3      SUKUMARAN,
             S/O. KUNJU, PAYITTUKKADU, MANGARA, KANNAMPARIYARAM,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 613

             BY ADVS.
             T.V.NEEMA
             SRI.ASHARAF PUTHIYOTTIL



RESPONDENT/S:

      1      AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
             LTD. NO. F 1514, AKATHTHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 008,
             REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2      THE SECRETARY,
             AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F 1514,
             AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 008

             BY ADVS.
             MATHEW BOB KURIAN
             K.T.THOMAS




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).6734/2021
                                      2




                                  JUDGMENT

Petitioners had availed building loan mortaging the property by

depositing their title deeds. Petitioners have appraoched this Court

apprehending that, they are likely to be forcefully evicted from the

property. It was stated that, by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3, all formalities have

been completed and that the petitioners are likely to be forcefully evicted

from the property. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and

2, wherein, they have asserted that, notices in accordance with law have

been issued to the petitioners.

2. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ

Petition directing that, petitioners shall not be dispossessed otherwise

than in accordance with law. It is made clear that, this will not preclude

the respondent from initiating appropriate legal proceedings and taking

the matter to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).6734/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6734/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAHAN EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE BANK, DATED 6.12.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GAHAN EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE BANK, DATED 7.9.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GANAN EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH THE BANK, DATED 23.1.2020.