IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37782 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- * M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN, HOUSE NO.23, SANAYOO NAGAR, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. (CORRECTED) *CORRECTED AS 'M.R.CHANDRA MOHAN VIDE ORDER DTD. 21.12.2010 IN IA. 17754/2010. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 691 001. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM.691 001. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM.691 001. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. 4. MANAGER, CANARA BOMBAY, KADAPPAKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 21.12.2010MIN IA. 17747/2010. R1 TIO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL ADDL. R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 37782 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan amount availed from the 4th respondent Bank recovery steps were initiated by resorting to the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the notices issued under Section 7 and 34 of the Act, respectively. Eventhough various contentions are raised this Court find no legally tenable ground to interfere with the proceedings, since the petitioner could not raise any successful challenge against the proceedings impugned. 2. However, it is noticed that on the basis of an interim order issued by this Court on 21.12.2010, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The amount demanded under Exts.P1 and P2 is a sum of Rs.1,96,577/-. According to the petitioner certain payments were made on the basis of Ext.P3 receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Heard, counsel appearing for the 4th respondent 2 WP(C) No. 37782/2010 Bank. Considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also on the basis of the undertaking expressed to make payment of the entire balance amount, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in instalments, within a reasonable time. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery which is initiated on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any due in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.02.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc