IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5120 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.C. SUNNY, MANGAKANDATHIL, OLASSA P.O., KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCING CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, P.O.NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 15. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5120 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the respondent Bank way back in the year 2003, which, however, could not be repaid in time, under which circumstances there was no other alternative for the respondent Bank, but to initiate recovery proceedings invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is under challeng in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful, but due to some unforeseen circumstances and that earnest efforts are being made to clear the liability at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the Bank submits on instructions, that as on date, an amount of nearly Rs.1.10 lakhs is due towards the 'defaulted instalments' with further incidental expenses which will come about Rs.1.55 lakhs. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is working as a Police Constable and his wife, who is a co-obligant, is also a government employee and this being the position, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised on the part of the petitioner as to the lapse and failure occurred in satisfying the 'overdue' amounts. Learned counsel W.P(C)No.5120/2010 -:2:- further submits that unless and until the overdue is cleared there is no question of regularising the loan account at all. 4. After hearing both sides and also taking note of the fact that the loan sanctioned by the respondent is in the 'housing sector', this Court is of the view that the matter can be disposed of giving appropriate direction to the petitioner to clear the 'overdue amount' at the earliest. 5. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) on or before 27th of this month and the remaining amount under the overdue account shall be cleared on or before 25th March 2010. On satisfying the requirement as above, the loan account of the petitioner shall stand regularised. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the regular EMIs as well. In case there is any default in clearing the overdue account or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMI the respondent Bank will be at liberty to take steps to recover the entire amount in lump sum. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge ahg. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5120 of 2010 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th February, 2010