IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16115 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR.N., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.P.NEELAKANDA PILLAI, 592, `ATHIRA', NEELAKANDAVILASAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. R.SREELATHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR.N., 592, `ATHIRA', NEELAKANDAVILASAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. CANARA BANK THODUPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R.), THODUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 R1 BY ADV SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.16115 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The daughter of the petitioners by name Namitha had availed an 'educational loan' from the first respondent, to pursue her B.Tech Degree course in August 2001. The original loan amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was subsequently enhanced and another Rs.1.5 lakhs was also sanctioned and given on 5.7.2002. The first petitioner, who is the father of the borrower stood as a guarantor in respect of the loan transaction. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, because of the financial constraints, the daughter of the petitioners could not satisfy the amount on time and that she is yet to obtain a proper placement. In spite of this, the Bank filed O.S.No.25 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,27,140/- from the first petitioner and his daughter/borrower, as borne by Ext.P1 plaint, wherein the defendants have filed a written statement as borne by Ext.P2. The matter is still pending trial. It is in the meanwhile, that the respondents have chosen to pursue the steps W.P(C) No.16115 of 2010-L 2 under the Revenue Recovery Act, issuing Ext.P3 notice and proceeding against the immovable properties of the second petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the second petitioner, who is the mother of the borrower and the wife of the first petitioner, was never a guarantor to the loan transaction; nor had she created any mortgage over the property in question, which hence is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned standing counsel for the Bank submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed by the first respondent that the second petitioner was never a guarantor and that no property belonging to the second petitioner is intended to be proceeded against. It is stated that the terms of the agreement have not been honoured by the borrower and guarantor and hence the Bank is very much at liberty to proceed against the said persons for realization of the due amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being the parents of the borrower are ready and willing to satisfy the entire outstanding liability; for which some reasonable time by way of instalments is sought for. After hearing both the sides and also considering the fact that the loan was extended for 'educational purpose', the petitioners are permitted to clear the W.P(C) No.16115 of 2010-L 3 entire liability in a phased manner ie. by way of 'ten' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th of July, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioners in satisfying the due amount as above, it will open to the Bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. It is also made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Bank for any concessions/ allowances and on such event, the application, if any preferred by the petitioners shall be considered by the Bank and appropriate orders shall be passed giving such benefits to the permissible extent. The benefit so to be extended by the Bank, if any, shall be set off only in receipt of the last instalment to be satisfied by the petitioners as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab