Kerala High Court
Santha.T.I vs The Nattakam Service Co-Operative ... on 23 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:79035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2025 IN W.P.(C)NO.10353 OF 2023 OF
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SANTHA T.I.
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O BABU, MOOLANTHANAM HOUSE, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686007
BY ADV SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK-3839,
PALLAM BRANCH, PALLAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHIRISED OFFICER, PIN - 686007
2 THE SPECIAL SALES OFFICER,
THE NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK-3839, PALLAM BRANCH,
PALLAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686007
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.A. JOJO, SC, THE NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
SRI. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GP.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:79035
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.10353 of 2023, invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing
the respondents to drop all legal proceedings on the property
covered by Ext.P1 sale notice dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd
respondent Special Sales Officer of the 1st respondent Nattakam
Service Co-operative Bank; and a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to regularise the loan account and to receive the
same [sic: permit the petitioner to clear the dues] in equal monthly
installments.
2. In the writ petition, which was filed in the year 2023,
the name of the 1st respondent Bank was wrongly shown as
Mannanam Service Co-operative Bank. In the description of the 2nd
respondent Special Sales Officer also the name of the Bank was
wrongly shown, which was corrected by the order dated
19.06.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.10353 of 2023.
3. On 22.09.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that judgment read thus;
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:79035
3. Upon instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent
Bank submitted that the total amount due to the Bank is
₹20,37,457/-. The petitioner is prepared to remit the amount
in twenty four equal monthly instalments.
4. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of
with the following directions :-
(i) The petitioner shall remit the total amount of
₹20,37,457/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Seven
Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Seven only) together
with any accrued interest and charges in twenty four
equal monthly instalments.
(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before
23.10.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid
on or before the last working day of every succeeding
month.
(iii) The respondent Bank shall accept the loan amount from
the petitioner as stated above.
(iv) In the event of default of any one instalment, the
respondent Bank shall be entitled to proceed in
accordance with law.
(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire
amount as stated above, all coercive proceedings
initiated against her shall be kept in abeyance."
4. Challenging the judgment dated 22.09.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.10353 of 2023, the appellant-
petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal.
5. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:79035
Nattakam Service Co-operative Bank, for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would
contend that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in
limiting the number of installments to 24. Considering the fact that
the petitioner is a senior citizen, the learned Single Judge ought to
have granted a larger period than 24 months, to clear the total
dues in the loan account in question.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
Nattakam Service Co-operative Bank, for the respondents, would
submit that Ext.P1 sale notice issued by the 2nd respondent Special
Sales Officer is one dated 10.01.2023, regarding the sale of the
secured asset scheduled to be held on 27.04.2023. During the
pendency of W.P.(C)No.10353 of 2023, the appellant-petitioner
has not chosen to make any payment towards the dues in the loan
account in question.
8. As already noticed hereinbefore, the appellant-
petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to drop all legal proceedings on the
property covered by Ext.P1 sale notice dated 10.01.2023 issued
by the 2nd respondent Special Sales Officer of the 1st respondent
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:79035
Nattakam Service Co-operative Bank. The said relief is virtually a
writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 sale notice issued by the 2 nd
respondent Special Sales Officer, whereby the sale of the secured
asset was scheduled to be held on 27.04.2023.
9. As reiterated by the Apex Court in South Indian Bank
Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], a writ
of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds
that the process does not conform to the law or the statute.
10. In the W.P.(C)No.10353 of 2023, the appellant-
petitioner has not raised any legal grounds to challenge Ext.P1 sale
notice dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent Special
Sales Officer.
11. Another relief sought for in the writ petition was a writ
of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the loan
account and to receive the same [sic: permit the petitioner to clear
the dues] in equal monthly installments. By the judgment dated
22.09.2025, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant-
petitioner to remit the total dues of Rs.20,37,457/-, together with
any accrued interest and charges in 24 equal monthly installments.
A reading of paragraph 3 of the said judgment would show that,
before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the
W.A.NO.2516 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:79035
petitioner, that she is prepared to remit the amount in 24 equal
monthly installments. By the judgment dated 22.09.2025, the
learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to pay the first
installment on or before 23.10.2025.
12. We find absolutely no grounds to entertain the
challenge made by the appellant-petitioner in this writ appeal,
against the judgment dated 22.09.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P(C)No.10353 of 2023. This writ appeal, which is an
intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958, is nothing but abuse of process of court, and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
