IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16357 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.A.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 52, CHANGANIKODATH HOUSE, EAST KODUNGALLOR, U.C. COLLEGE.P.O., ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ALUVA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. PIN-683101. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY ALUVA-683101. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN,SC R2 & R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16357/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.468 OF 2010 BEFORE SUB COURT, PARUR. P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONERS P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 23/2/2011. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 23/2/2011. P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16357 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner due to the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner contends that there is difference in the amount quoted in Ext.P3 and also Ext.P5. Therefore, there should be adjudication of the amounts due, is the contention raised. 2. The learned counsel for the bank points out that Ext.P5 is only a notice inviting the petitioner for participating in an Adalath and the amount mentioned therein is with interest only up to December 2007 and that is the reason for the difference in the amounts mentioned in the two exhibits. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. This Court had passed an order on 17.6.2011 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is admitted that the amount has been paid. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is W.P.(C)No.16357/11 2 disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall serve a statement of accounts to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts due in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on due dates without default, further coercive recovery proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.16357/11 3 W.P.(C)No.16357/11 4