IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5692 of 2008(C) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.100/06 IN OS.57/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.D.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKOCHI, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., THOPPUMPADY BRANCH, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. P.S.SUDHESH KUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PANANJIKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5692 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred to defer the sale of the property on the basis of Ext.P3 and to direct the Bank to take a decision on Ext.P2 and for other reliefs. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner persuasively submits before me that the property proposed to be sold is the residential house wherein the writ petitioner is living with his daughters and if the sale materialises, they will become shelter less. The application for one time settlement scheme filed by him has not been considered by the Bank. 3. At the outset I may like to point out that the suit is of the year 1996. Twelve years have been elapsed and even now the decree amount remains as such to the fullest extent. But at the same time, I feel that the petitioner should not be thrown out of his residential house if there is a real intention for him to pay the amount. 4. Learned Standing counsel for the Bank would submit that in spite of maximum opportunity given, the petitioner has not taken that WPC NO 5692/08 2 in the right spirit and also has not paid the amount and therefore the court should not show any leniency on him. 5. After hearing both sides, I feel the prayer made by the petitioner can be granted on the following terms. (1) The writ petitioner herein is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 25.3.08. (2) The bank is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for one time settlement scheme and also, if possible, to show some leniency in the matter and fix the amount within a period of six weeks from today. (3) The writ petitioner is directed to pay the entire balance amount arrived at within a period of three months from today which takes in Rs.20,000/- as ordered by me. (4) If the writ petitioner fails to pay Rs.20,000/- as directed by me, he is liable to forfeit the benefit conferred on him and the Bank will be at liberty to proceed with the sale. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5692/08 3