RAJU MUNDIYANIPURATH Vs. OORANGATTIRI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to have been the owner of certain extents of property, which was purchased by the respondent-Co-operative Bank in an auction conducted for recovery of the amounts due from him under a loan facility availed of from them earlier, has approached this Court seeking that the said property be directed to be re-conveyed based on the directions in Ext.P1 judgment.

(2.) According to the petitioner, as voiced through his learned counsel Sri.K.Dilip, when the property was sold in the year 2007, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.19590/2007, offering to pay the entire dues in the loan account and consequentially praying that the property be re-conveyed to him. The learned counsel says that this Writ Petition was heard by this Court, thus culminating in Ext.P1 judgment, dated 06.04.2016, wherein the following directions were issued:

(3.) Sri.K.Dilip, submits that in spite of the directions afore, the respondent-Bank took no further action and therefore, that his client was constrained to prefer another representation seeking its implementation; and when that was also not heeded to, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.14011/2017, leading to Ext.R1(b) judgment, wherein a further direction was given to the respondent-Bank to consider his aforementioned subsequent representation in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. He says that in spite of all this, directions, Ext.P5 communication was issued to him wherein the respondent-Bank took a stand that the property can be reconveyed only if the petitioner pays its fair value. He asserts that Ext.P5 is in gross violation of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment and therefore, prays that the Bank be directed to re-convey the property to his client based on the directions in Ext.P1 judgment.