IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4227 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAFIYA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.HANEEFA, RESIDING AT ARALAKUDA HOUSE, NEKRAJE POST AND VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARAGOD. 2. THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.FF 113. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.4227 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps being taken by the respondent Bank for realization of the due amount under a housing loan. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to avail the benefit of 'One Time Settlement'; more so, in view of the observations made by this Court earlier vide Ext.P1 judgment, which however is not being extended despite approaching the respondent Bank on many occasions. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that the matter has become final by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment and no more interference is possible in view of the subsequent conduct displayed by the petitioner. It is true that by virtue of Ext.P1, this Court has observed that the benefit of One Time Settlement, if any, available will be extended to the petitioner. W.P(C) No.4227 of 2010-C 2 But the benefit of One Time Settlement was available only in respect of the 'agricultural loan' and not with regard to any 'housing loan' as involved in the present case; submits the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. In the meanwhile pursuant to the earlier sale proclamation issued vide Ext.P2, the petitioner had deposited Rs.50,000/- and further there was no earnest efforts to wipe off even the 'over due' amount. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the total outstanding liability is about Rs.2 lakhs as shown in Ext.P7, out of which, Rs.1.42 lakhs is towards the overdue amount. 4. The leaned counsel for the petitioner seeks for some indulgence, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of reasonable instalments. 5. After considering the facts and figures, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability in 'three' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.3.2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will be open to the Bank, to proceed W.P(C) No.4227 of 2010-C 3 with appropriate steps for realization of the entire due amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.4227 of 2010-C 4