IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22218 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALEENA ISMAIL, AGED 44, W/O. T.M.ISMAIL, RESIDING AT THADATHIPARAMBIL, HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED POST BOX NO.140, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,POST BOX NO,140 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KARUKACHAL BRANCH KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 001. 4. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.A. SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22218 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a defaulter to the first respondent. The matter was considered by the District Legal Services Authority and the dispute was settled as per Ext.P1 award of the Lok Adalat. Ext.P1 records the settlement of the dispute and directs that the liability to the Bank should be paid by the petitioner in 12 instalments of Rs.15,000/- in the manner as provided therein. Clause 3 of the award reads as under. “In case of non-payment of agreed amount/installments as stipulated in clause 2 above/three consecutive instalments, the Petitioner Bank is at liberty to realize the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- mentioned in clause 1 above, the amount due as on this date together with interest thereon @ 6% per annum till realization with expenses in execution of this award from the respondents personally and all their asset and also by the sale of properties/good mortgaged/ hypothecated to the Bank. “ 2. Thus evidently, if the instalments specified in clause (3) are not paid, clause 3 becomes operative and the liability of the petitioner will be discharged if payment is made in the manner mentioned therein. Admittedly installment payments were not made and the proceedings were initiated and that was WP(c).No.22218/09 2 challenged in WP(c).No.36406/07 resulting in Ext.P5 judgment, giving time to the petitioner to pay the amount due. Now the Bank also accepts that by 20th of April, 2009, the petitioner has paid Rs. 3,11,820/-. Petitioner submits that this payment satisfies the amount due as per clause (3) of Ext.P1 award referred to above and that in terms of clause(3) of Ext.P1, accepting the payment, in settlement of the liability, the documents of title deposited by her should be released. Bank resists this prayer mainly contending that the payment was not made by the petitioner as ordered in Ext.P1. It is stated that even in Ext.P5 judgment, though time was allowed, that was not complied with. Therefore, Bank contends that the petitioner should pay a total amount of Rs.5,98,836/- and that the payment made will not exonerate the petitioner from her liabilities. 3. In my view, the approach of the Bank is wrong. On the reading of paragraph `3' of Ext.P1 award itself show that, if installment payment as ordered therein is not made and if payment is made as per clause(3) of Ext.P1, the liability of the petitioner will stand discharged. The case of the petitioner is that with the payment of Rs.3,11,820/- the entire liability is discharged. This is a matter for the Bank to consider and on such consideration if the payment made by the petitioner is found to satisfy the amount due as per paragraph '3' of Ext.P1, the petitioner is entitled to have the WP(c).No.22218/09 3 documents deposited to be released to her . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Bank shall examine whether with the payment made by the petitioner the amount due under paragraph `3' of Ext.P1 award is satisfied and on such examination if it is found that the liability of the petitioner is satisfied, the Bank shall release the documents deposited by the petitioner. If not, it will be open to the Bank to require the petitioner to pay the balance amount due under paragraph `3' of Ext.P1. and if payment is made, the documents shall be released. This shall be done on the production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WP(c).No.22218/09 4