IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28099 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V.BABY,S/O. VARKEY,AGED 42 YEARS, VAZHAKKALA PUTHENPURA HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (G) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR. 2. THE TELLICHERRY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, NO.H-1030,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28099 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the 2nd respondent-bank in 1998. He also availed of another loan for Rs. 20,000/- for agricultural purposes. The petitioner defaulted repayment of the loan amounts. The bank brought the properties belonging to the petitioner to sale, which ultimately culminated in the bank itself buying the property on 22-6-2001. The petitioner filed a writ petition. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation . Pursuant to Ext. P1, the 1st respondent heard the petitioner and the recovery officer of the bank. On the date of hearing, the 1st respondent directed the parties to think it over and to submit the exact amount that can be paid. Thereafter, although the 1st respondent issued Ext. P2 notice directing the petitioner to appear before him on 5.9.2009 at 3.00 p.m., the 1st respondent passed Ext. P3 order dated 31-8-2009 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,10,000/-, whereas the petitioner offered to make payment of only Rs. 3 lakhs. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext. P3 and quash the original of the same. (b) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to make the payments in 12 monthly equal instalments. (c) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to give concessions to the petitioner in repaying the loan amount.” 2. Counsel for the bank stoutly opposes the prayers. According W.P.C. No. 28099/2009 -: 2 :- to him, the sale itself had taken place more than 7 years ago and therefore the petitioner cannot now come and say that he will pay only Rs. 3 lakhs for re-conveyance of the property. He would further submit that the bank had given further reduction in the amounts payable by the petitioner to the tune of almost Rs. 30,000/- and it is after deducting that amount, Rs. 4,10,000/- was arrived at. However, counsel for the bank would submit that the bank is still willing to re-convey the property provided the petitioner pays the above amount. 3. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks facility to pay that amount in instalments, which is also opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 4. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the bank was very lenient to the petitioner. The petitioner is not in a position to bargain on the amount payable. The entire recovery proceedings are over and if the petitioner wants re-conveyance of the property, he has to pay the amounts as directed by the bank. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,10,000/- with further interest thereon at the rate agreed upon in the original loan agreement, from the date of Ext. P3, with conveyance charges, within two months. On such payment, the bank shall re-convey the property to the petitioner. If the petitioner does not pay the amount within two months, the bank would not be liable to re-convey the property to the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.