IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1831 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24860/2011 Dated 20/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- 1. SANDEEP GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 37, PALAKKATT HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 670. 2. ELSY JOSEPH, W/O.GEORGE, AGED 69, PALAKATT HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 670. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, IDUKKI-685 584. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTPUZHA-686 669. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ANGAMALY-SABIR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, INDIAN RAILWAY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669. R1 BY SC SRI.SATHEESH NINAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1831 of 2011 & C.M.Appl.No.1034 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent-Bank. Having satisfied with the explanation offered in the affidavit for the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, the delay is condoned and by the consent of both sides, we dispose of the Writ Appeal on merits. 2. Apparently, the appellants were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. It is also not in dispute that they are defaulters in payment of the loan amount availed from the first respondent-Bank. After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge gave two modes of payment to the appellants. The appellants could pay the balance amount due in twelve equal monthly instalments commencing from 1.11.2011 or the appellants can also give a proposal for one time settlement seeking reduction of interest imposed by the first respondent- WA.1831/11 2 Bank. Apparently, it seems, after paying one instalment commencing from 1.11.2011, the appellants approached for one time settlement giving the figure as Rs.32,00,000/- (thirtytwo lakhs only). According to the respondents, the said offer was rejected. In that view of the matter, one time settlement proposal given by the appellants was rejected. Still it does not preclude the appellants from giving another proposal, if they desire so. However, he is at liberty to continue the payment of instalments as well. However, nothing prevents both the parties to sit across the table and come to some settlement for payment of the entire amount due under one time settlement scheme. For this, the appellants have to give proposal, which shall be considered by respondents in accordance with the procedure applicable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks indulgence of this Court to extend time for payment of the second instalment till 15.12.2011 on the ground that as there was proposal for one time settlement, they could not pay the second instalment within the time stipulated by the learned Single Judge. We find no ground to reject this request. Therefore, so far as the second instalment, we grant time upto 15.12.2011 to make payment. But the appellants, if they wish to pay the amount in twelve instalments as indicated WA.1831/11 3 by the learned Single Judge, he must regularise the payment of instalments with effect from 1.1.2012. With the above observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE