IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22720 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. MOIDEENKUTTY A.C., S/O. ALIKUTTY, ATHANIKKAL HOUSE, PATTITHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O. ABDULLA MUSALIAR, KODAKKANCHERY HOUSE, PATTITHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KUDALLUR BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, PP MOIDU'S BUILDING, KUDALLUR, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM-679 101. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTITHARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 4. MUJEEB RAHMAN T.T., S/O. MOIDUNNI, THATTATHAZHATH HOUSE, PATTITHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 101. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.22720 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners along with fourth respondent herein had availed three distinct loans from the first respondent Bank during the year 2007. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner had paid the entire liability with respect to the loan availed by him. The second petitioner had also effected payment of substantial amounts and the balance outstanding is only around Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that the fourth respondent had committed serious default in repayment of the loan availed by him and that he is not available at present as he had already left to Gulf countries. It is further stated that the at the behest of the first respondent Bank, revenue recovery steps has now been initiated for realising the amounts due from the fourth respondent. Grievance of the petitioners is that properties belonging to them is now being attached and sold on issuing Ext.P3 notice for realising the amount due from the fourth respondent. However, it is admitted that the properties in question were mortgaged with the first respondent Bank for securing the loan W.P(C) No.22720 of 2010-L 2 availed by the fourth respondent also. As such the petitioner could not seek exemption from the liability and I find any merit in the challenges raised against the proceedings on the ground that the first respondent had failed to take effective steps against the fourth respondent. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to wipe off the liability by paying amounts due under the revenue recovery proceedings provided a reasonable time is granted to pay the amount in instalments. It is also pointed out that the amounts sought to be recovered under Exts.P3 and P4 is not the amounts actually due and the petitioners are liable for payment of only the actual dues. 3. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court on 21.7.2010, the petitioners had remitted an amount of Rs.35,000/-. Learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank on the basis of instructions submitted that the balance outstanding will be around Rs.85,375/- as on 31.3.2009, the date on which the account was classified as 'NPA'. It is submitted that interest due thereafter is also liable to be paid. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not at all warranted, the W.P(C) No.22720 of 2010-L 3 petitioners can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in instalments. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 notices, provided the petitioners remit the entire balance outstanding to the first respondent, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 10.10.2010 and on or before the 10th day of succeeding months. 6. It is left open to the petitioners to approach the first respondent Bank seeking correction of the balance amount outstanding, if there is any mistake. They are also at liberty to seek waiver of interest/penal interest to the possible extent. 7. It is 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 pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab //True Copy//