IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4788 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M.MATHEW, 76 YEARS, S/O. CHERU MATHEW, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, MARATHAMCODE.P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KUNNANKULAM - 680 503. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4788 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is approaching this court aggrieved by steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice for attachment of movables situated in the house, where he is residing. Son of the petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank to which one Mr. Rajendran, S/o. Govindan Nair was the guarantor. According to the petitioner, the son is now employed in Gulf countries and the loan in question was availed for a business which he was conducting, which eventually failed. The revenue recovery steps as evidenced from Ext.P1 was initiated at the behest of the 1st respondent against the son for realising a sum of Rs.3,07,414/- along with interest due thereon from 22.11.2008 onwards at the rate of 12.75%. W.P.(C).4788/11 -2- 2. According to the petitioner, coercive steps for attachment of household articles situated in the house is now being threatened, despite request made by the petitioner to permit payment of the amounts due in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that the loan in question was availed by the son of the petitioner during the year 2006, to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. But there was total failure to repay the loan. Since various demand notices issued by the 1st respondent were not responded, requisition for revenue recovery steps was issued. The petitioner is a total stranger as far as the loan transaction is concerned. Hence the writ petition filed by him could not be entertained, is the contention. 4. Considering merits of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has absolutely no locus standi to file this writ petition. However, limited submission of the petitioner is to permit payment of the amounts in a phased manner with a view to save the articles from not being attached from the house wherein he is residing. It is evident that the petitioner is making an offer for payment of amount on W.P.(C).4788/11 -3- bahalf of his son in order to get rid of the liability. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a short period. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that attachment if any effected with respect to the immovable property of either the son of the petitioner or the guarantor shall continue. It is further 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 and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge