IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 12721 of 2008(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------- 1. K.VENU KUMAR, S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI, 'ROHINI'. PADMA BUILDING, VATTAPARA P.O., PIN:695 028. 2. SARO.A, S/O.K.VENUKUMAR, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., SANTHI NAGAR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MR.A.K.PADMA KUMAR, S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI STAT INSTITUTE LANE, RAVI NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD. FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 12721 OF 2008 - M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners and the 4th respondent are the children of one P. Krishna Pillai. According to the petitiners, Krishna Pillai was a guarantor to the loans availed by the 4th respondent and had mortgaged landed properties along with the buildings belonging to him as security for the liability. It is stated that subsequent to the mortgage, the mortgagor settled portions of the properties in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 and a portion of the same property has been settled in favour of the 4th respondent, who according to the petitioners is the defaulter. Petitioners contend that in partial discharge of the liability they have paid certain amount and in this writ petition what is sought for by them is a direction to respondent No. 3 not to proceed against the entire property given as security by the guarantor as it is necessary to realise their debts and they should confine the proceedings against the property stands in the name of the 4th respondent. W.P.(C) No.12721 OF 2008-M -2- 2. True, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if coercive action is not necessary against the entire property to realise the dues, it is not expected that the respondents should proceed against the entire property but should confine to the required extent of the property alone. 3. But regarding their contention that in the process, the extent that is held by them should be left alone, this Court will not be justified in issuing such a direction as in law, it is for respondents 1 to 3 to decide how much extent of land should be proceeded and which portion of the same should be proceeded against. Therefore, leaving it open to respondents 1 to 3 to decide as to how much of the mortgaged property should be proceeded against and which portion of the same, this writ petition is disposed of. 4. Yet another point that is raised by the petitioners is that they should be extended the benefit of one time settlement scheme and they should be made known to the exact extent of the liability to which they are answerable. Petitioners are also making reference to Ext. P5 judgment where this Court already issued a direction to consider the petitioners' claim for one time settlement scheme. In W.P.(C) No.12721 OF 2008-M -3- view of the above, I direct that the respondents shall within two weeks from now intimate the petitioners the exact extent of their liability and consider their request for one time settlement, provided if the scheme is now in vogue. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-