IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2011 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13201 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 62 YRS., THAKADIYEL VADAKETHIL HOUSE, S.N.PURAM POST, KOOROPADA VILLAGE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF MYSORE, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, VETTEEL ESTATE, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.13201 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner's son had availed a loan from the respondent bank. The petitioner stood as surety to the said loan transaction. Irregular payment of the instalments towards the said loan account constrained respondent bank to take action for realisation of the outstanding amount. On being aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by the bank, the petitioner's son approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.5781/2011. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P1 judgment would reveal that the outstanding liability under the said loan account at that point of time was nearly Rs.13,05,643/-. However, considering the fact that it was a housing loan, this Court permitted the petitioner therein to clear the entire liability by way of six equal monthly instalments. As per Ext.P1 judgment, the first instalment was to be paid on or before 31.3.2011 and the subsequent instalments have to be paid on or before 30th of every succeeding months. The respondent bank was also given liberty to proceed with further steps for the realisation of the entire W.P.(C) NO.13201/2011 2 amount in lump sum and to take possession of the building in case the petitioner therein commits default in effecting payment as permitted as per Ext.P1. Admittedly, the petitioner therein had committed default in effecting payment in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. In the said circumstances, in terms of Ext.P1, the respondent bank initiated steps for realisation of the entire amount in lump sum and to take physical possession of the property in question as per Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P3 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P3 and to allow the petitioner to remit the entire arrears in a reasonable time, that too, by availing OTS facility. I do not think that this Court can entertain this Writ Petition in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner therein is not presently available in India and he is abroad for the purpose of taking up employment. The petitioner and his wife are presently residing in the house in the property concerned. Whatever that be, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot have an independent cause of action to maintain this Writ Petition in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. In that view of the matter, the petitioner therein or anybody under him wants enlargement of time for effecting payment, W.P.(C) NO.13201/2011 3 they ought to have filed appropriate petition in the said Writ Petition. Since the petitioner's son who actually availed the loan had failed to comply with the specific directions in Ext.P1 judgment, I do not think that the petitioner who is the guarantor can file a fresh Writ Petition to get over the consequences of non-compliance with the directions in the said judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, when faced with such situation, sought permission to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to move appropriate petition in W.P.(C).No.5781/2011. It will be open to the petitioner to move appropriate petition in the said Writ Petition, in accordance with law. Considering the fact that it is a housing loan and the petitioner is under threat of dispossession, to enable the petitioner or any competent person to have breathing time to take appropriate steps in the matter, the respondent bank shall keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Ext.P3 for a period of one week from today. Subject to the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.13201/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO.13201/2011 5 JUDGMENT September, 2010