K. M. Joseph, J. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. The appellant availed a loan from the respondent-bank. The bank proceeded against the appellant. The appellant approached this Court challenging Ext.P9, which is a notice issued by the bank seeking to take possession of the property of the appellant. Earlier, the appellant approached this Court and obtained Ext.P8 judgment. There was thus a further prayer to comply with the direction in Ext.P8 judgment before proceeding with Ext.P9 notice. The appellant also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to clear of his loan account by availing OTS scheme after deducting the penal interest and other penal charges calculated in the loan account.
2. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the writ petition. The learned Judge took the view that in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. in Ext.P8 judgment, the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs, but that direction was not complied with. It was found that the appellant did not turn up in spite of several notices issued by the bank. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding, that it was a clear case of abuse, is not correct. According to counsel, the appellant had, in fact, deposited an amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs. It may be true that the matter was not thereafter brought up. It is submitted the finding regarding non compliance is not correct. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has given a representation.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents obtained instructions and submitted that the bank has already taken possession of the property on 21/5/2014. In the representation given by the appellant regarding the waiver of penal interest, it is submitted that, decision would be taken thereon within a period of two weeks from today.
6. We see no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment, particularly, in view of the subsequent development that the bank has already taken possession of the property. As far as the request under the OTS scheme is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no OTS scheme in force as of now.
7. In regard to the complaint that the direction in Ext.P8 judgment is not complied with, the submissions of counsel for the respondents are that notice was issued to the appellant when the judgment was brought to the notice of the bank. The bank took a decision and communicated the same to the appellant on 10/3/2014 calling upon the appellant to appear on 14/3/2014 and on 17/3/2014 the bank communicated to the appellant the rejection of the representation.
In such circumstances, we dispose of the appeal recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the representation, which has been given by the appellant on 26/6/2014, would be considered and a decision taken within a period of two weeks and that the decision to be taken will also be communicated to the appellant. Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE dpk.
/True copy/ PS to Judge.