IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34635 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. RAJAMANIKKAM, S/O.T. KUNJAPPA PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, SRI MADANGI ILLAM, CHULLIMADA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, NRI BRANCH, THERADUPUZHA BUILDINGS, P.B. NO. 118, R.S. ROAD, PALAKKAD - 1. R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.V.THOMAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34635 OF 2008 & I.A.No.1266 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner availed a housing loan on 11.11.2005. No amounts were repaid except Rs.25,000/- stated to be paid on 11.4.2008 and that was the only payment until Ext.P2 possession notice was issued. An order of stay was granted by this Court on 24.11.2008 on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 29.11.2008 and a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2008. Even those amounts were not deposited, except an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 24.1.2009. Apart from the statement that there is no willful negligence in not paying the amounts in time, the petitioner says that on the influence of the second respondent, somebody, who are interested in real estate business have offered to purchase the property. I do not find any legal impediment or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings. The respondents cannot, therefore, be held back WPC.34635/08 Page numbers from further proceeding with the impugned action. I also do not find any ground to hold that the petitioner would be in a position to save the transaction by making payments to the satisfaction of the bank to regularise the loan. This is all the more so because even according to the petitioner, he has to find a purchaser and sell off the property. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, repelling all contentions, it is directed that the impugned distress action can be continued by the bank unless the petitioner makes deposit of an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- within a period of three weeks from now. If such deposit is made, the bank will consider whether it is amenable to the request of the petitioner for regularising the transaction. If such payment is not made, the bank will be at liberty to further proceed with distress action. The writ petition and I.A. are ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.