Shameer.K vs The Kollam District Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8672 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.721 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

              SHAMEER.K,
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O.KASSIMKUNJU, KASIX MANZIL, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O.,
              KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690536.

              BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

RESPONDENT:

              THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KARUNAGAPALLY
              EVENING BRANCH, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM-690518.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SC,SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.721 OF 2021(M)

                                    2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

The petitioner challenges the recovery proceedings

initiated against the surety. The petitioner offering to

make the payment by himself if installment prayer is

granted, had approached this Court.

2. At the time of admission, interim stay was

granted subject to a direction that the petitioner shall

deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)

within one month from that date to show the bonafides.

3. When the matter was again taken up on

12.02.2021, there was no representation and the

respondent informed that the interim order has not been

complied with. Thereupon, the interim order was

vacated, posted the case for objection and for hearing on

08.03.2021. The case was then adjourned to

16.03.2021. On that date and as well as on this day to

which the case stood adjourned, the petitioner remained WP(C).No.721 OF 2021(M)

consistently absent. There is no representation also.

Evidently, the petitioner has no bonafides in approaching

this Court with a prayer as sought. The respondent

remained present through out the proceedings.

Accordingly, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition

as meritless.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/16-3 WP(C).No.721 OF 2021(M)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR RECOVERY OF SALARY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE