IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20201 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- EP.376 /2006 IN OS.971/2002 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.K. RAJAN, AGED 55 , S/O. KUNJAPPU, RESIDING AT MANJAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. CHEMMANNOOR, VIA KANIPPAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHOWALLORPADY BRANCH, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. MR.A.ANTONY, SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20201/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN E.P. NO.376/2006 IN OS.971/2002 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20201 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 proceedings initiated by the first respondent. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to extend the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner. iii) To direct the respondents to grant installment facilities to the petitioner to remit the amount claimed as per E.P.No.376/2006 in O.s.No.971/2002 of the Sub Court, Thrissur.” 2. Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.376 of 2006 in O.S.No.971 of 2002 on the file o the sub Court, Thrissur. Pursuant to a decree for money passed against the petitioner and also his wife, the property mortgaged to the decree holder bank towards security for the loan availed was brought to sale. Decree holder, bank in auction bid and brought the property to sale. Later, sale was also confirmed. What remained was only delivery of the property to the decree holder by the execution court. At that stage, W.P.(C).No.20201 of 2009 - O 2 petitioner approached this Court and filed the above petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Taking note of submissions made by the petitioner that he is prepared to discharge the entire decree debt including the expences incurred by the decree holder to bring the property to sale before and after such sale, the execution court was directed to keep in abeyance the delivery subject to the condition of depositing Rs.4 Lakhs by the petitioner within the time fixed. Notice was also ordered to the respondent, decree holder, bank. The respondent on entering appearance has filed a counter affidavit stating it has no objection in reconveying the property setting aside the sale if, petitioner/judgment debtor is prepared to settle the entire claim as stated in his counter affidavit. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he has some grievance with respect to the rate of interest charged by the bank since his interest is only in getting back the property he will remit the amount as calculated and shown in the counter affidavit of the bank. However, the learned counsel wants to make a reservation permitting him to approach higher authorities of the bank to get a reduction in the rate of interest at least after W.P.(C).No.20201 of 2009 - O 3 the sale. The balance outstanding amount as on 12.8.2009, as per the counter affidavit after deposit of Rs.4 Lakhs is shown as Rs.4,94,521/-. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, it is ordered that if the amount of Rs.4,94,521/- is deposited on or before 31.10.2009 by the petitioner/judgment debtor as agreed to by both sides, the sale shall stand set aside and further proceedings of sale shall stand dropped. In case the amount is not deposited within the time stipulated, the execution court shall take appropriate steps for delivering the property to the respondent/bank. It is also made clear that in case the respondent, bank provides a concession to the judgment debtor on his representation for modification of the interest, then he heed deposit the sum as modified and agreed to by the bank before the execution court for setting aside the sale. But, I make it clear that such agreed sum whatever be the circumstances, should be deposited before the time limit stipulated. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-