IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14445 of 2011(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DHARVEZ MUHAMMED, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, ROUFIYA MANZIL, ZACHARIA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.R.VIJAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VADAKANAL BRANCHK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14445 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due in a loan account, which was availed by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent Bank. Contention of the petitioner is that the amount sought to be recovered is not true and correct and that the 3rd respondent had already instituted a civil suit for realising the amounts. Under such circumstances interference of this Court is sought for, to restrain the revenue recovery steps. 2. Heard ; learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Considering the contentions raised, I am of the view that, institution of a civil suit could not be taken as a ground to restrain the impugned revenue recovery steps. Further, this Court may not be in a position to enter upon any findings regarding correctness of the amounts 2 W.P.(C).No.14445 of 2011 demanded. Hence, I find no tenable ground raised to restrain the recovery steps. 3. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings. 4. Even though interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments, within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated for recovery of amounts, pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or 3 W.P.(C).No.14445 of 2011 before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notice already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/