IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30301 of 2010 (K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. RAM MOHAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY PANICKER, ENARC GARDENS, PERINGAVU, THRISSUR. 2. DR. GEETHA, W/O. RAM MOHAN, ENARC GARDENS, PERINGAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, BRAHMASWAM BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI , SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.30301 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are man and wife. Issue involved relates to revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realising amounts due under a loan account availed by the petitioner from the first respondent Bank. On an earlier occasion, when the revenue recovery steps were initiated, the petitioners have approached this Court in W.P(C) No.24289 of 2009. In Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioners were directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 20.1.2010 and on such payment the Bank was directed to furnish a statement to the petitioners, after crediting waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. The petitioners were permitted to continue payment of the balance amount in 'six' equal monthly instalments, starting from 15.2.2010 onwards. 2. According to the petitioners they had remitted some amounts pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment. However, it is stated that the matter was settled thereafter by virtue of a compromise arrived at the Lok Adalath, in a suit which was pending before the Sub Court, W.P(C) No.30301 of 2010-K 2 Thrissur, as O.S.No.1197/2007. The said suit was filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of amounts due under the loan account. 3. Ext.P2 is the compromise arrived before the Lok Adalath. It is noticed that after crediting all payments made by the petitioners and after waiver of a sum of Rs.3,200/- being penal interest, it was agreed that the petitioner will remit a sum of Rs.1,06,030/- along with 6% interest from 29.1.2010 onwards, within a period of six months. It is admitted that there was failure on the part of the petitioners in effecting payment in accordance with the terms of the compromise. 4. According to the petitioners the repayments could not be made either in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment or in Ext.P2 compromise, only because of the continued illness of the first petitioner due to the disease known as 'Ca rectum'. The present grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of revenue recovery is being pursued on issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 5. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. It is vehemently contended that there is no bonafides on the part of the petitioners in making repeated approaches before this Court, and the same is intended only to protract the matter with W.P(C) No.30301 of 2010-K 3 a view to escape from the liability of the amounts legally due. It is pointed out that the petitioners are perpetual defaulters who had not cared to discharge the liability inspite of indulgence shown by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have committed deliberate defaults in payment of amounts settled through Adalath. Under such circumstances, contention of the respondent is that the petitioners does not deserves any indulgence. 6. According to the petitioners the first respondent Bank is entitled only to recover the amounts covered under Ext.P2 compromise. It is contended that the amounts now sought to be recovered by virtue of Ext.P3 notice is not the amount due as per Ext.P2 compromise of the Adalath. It is further contended that there was no wilful default and the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in Exts.P1 and P2 were only because of the unforeseen illness met with by the first petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire amount within a short period, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that they are not intending to pursue any such challenges before any other forum. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of W.P(C) No.30301 of 2010-K 4 the opinion that the petitioners does not deserve any consideration, since there is consecutive defaults committed by them. However, taking note of the illness of the first petitioner, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to wipe off the entire liability within a short period, in instalments. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P3, provided the petitioners remit the entire amount due under Ext.P2 in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding months. 9. 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.P3 notice already issued. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab