The petitioner approached this Court purportedly against the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. The petitioner admits that he had been before this Court earlier, wherein this Court had granted time to settle the arrears as per Ext.P2. Obviously and admittedly, the said direction was not complied with. Petitioner hence, challenges the appointment of a Commissioner by the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank however, submits that after Ext.P1 order was issued and on default made, the Bank had taken over possession of the residential property on 6.6.2013. Subsequent to that, petitioner approached the DRT with Securitization Application No. 485 of 2013 wherein the DRT had granted resumption of possession on condition of payment of money in instalments. Petitioner remitted only one instalment to WP(C).15746/14 2 obtain resumption of possession and later defaulted. Though some payments were made, it was not in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal. The respondent Bank then approached the Tribunal and placed the facts before it, upon which the Tribunal rejected the Interlocutory Application by order dated 06.09.2013 permitting the Bank to proceed with the recovery. It is unfortunate that none of these circumstances, have been stated in the writ petition filed now. Petitioner having willfully suppressed facts, is not entitled to any equity and is liable to be mulcted with exemplary cost. In such circumstances, there shall be a cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on the petitioner which the respondent Bank shall recover from the petitioner in the recovery proceedings and remit the same to the Kerala Mediation Centre. The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Director, Kerala Mediation Centre.
Writ petition dismissed, with costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs