IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36230 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARAN.V.K, S/O. KUTTAN, PALAKUZHIYKKIZHAKKETHIL, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SANTHOSH THOMAS KANDAMCHIRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VAKATHANAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 36230 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan in 2000. He made certain remittances. He could not continue to make further payments. This is attributable to the fact that his daughter fell ill and had undergone prolonged treatment for ailments relating to kidney and brain and ultimately, she died at the age of 21 years in 2007, January. The petitioner is a Postal Assistant and is stated to be suffering from cardiac ailments. The land in question is about 4.5 cents. With an attempt to save the petitioner from further distress action, this court had issued an interim order requiring payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by 24.3.2009 in four instalments. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- initially. Thereafter he could not pay that also. These factors would show that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings and the attempt to let the petitioner retrieve the transaction from its original status has also fizzled out. The bank could therefore go on with the recovery action, under normal Wpc 36230/2008 2 circumstances. In my view, this appears to be an extra ordinary situation where the balancing of the petitioner's right to Article 21 of the Constitution as against commercial requirement of the bank to further proceed with the recovery action calls for a lenience in favour of the petitioner. I find this being doctored by the situation. Therefore as a last resort, it is ordered that the distress action against the petitioner will stand deferred for a further period of four months to enable the petitioner to find out alternate ways and means and even selling off the property and wiping off the transaction instead of under the distress mode. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/28/3