IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No.946 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).29818/2007(Y) DATED 16/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------------------- 1. DAISY JAMES, KIZHEKETHOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR. 2. LINCY JAMES. KIZHAKETHOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS, (DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS), NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYANM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SPECIAL OFFICER, THE KTOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ERATTUPETTA MAIN BRANCH, ERATTUPETTA. R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR,SC,KTM DIST CO.BANK LTD. SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.946 of 2008-E -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. The appellants before us were the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.29818 of 2007. 2. The main relief sought in the writ petition was to quash Exhibit P6 notification issued by the 1st respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, and Exhibits P4 and P5 notices issued by the 3rd respondent-Bank. The other prayers in the writ petition are for consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge having found that the normal loan term would expire only by 2010, directed the petitioners to regularise the loans by remitting the entire outstandings within one month from the date of that judgment. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioners are before us in this Writ Appeal. 3. Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the mortgaged property to the Bank is a valuable property and for a paltry sum due to the Bank, the entire property need not be sold by the Bank and further submits that, he would produce a prospective W.A.No.946 of 2008-E - 2 - purchaser for a portion of the property mortgaged to the Bank and if the prospective purchaser is prepared to purchase a portion of the property which is mortgaged to the Bank by discharging the entire loan liabilities to the Bank, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent-Bank. 4. We have heard Sri.T.A.Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the Bank. 5. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants appears to be reasonable and if it is granted, it will not cause any prejudice to the respondent-Bank. In that view of the matter, without going into the other details of the case, we pass the following: Order (i) The appellants shall produce before the respondent-Bank a prospective purchaser, who is prepared to purchase a portion of the mortgaged property to the Bank, within four months' time from today. (ii) If the prospective purchaser is willing to purchase a portion of the property by discharging the entire liability towards the dues of the Bank, the Bank will accept the said amount and discharge the entire liability of the respondent-Bank and also release the original title deeds deposited with the Bank. W.A.No.946 of 2008-E - 3 - (iii) If for any reason the appellants commit default of any of the orders and directions issued by this Court, the Bank will be at liberty to take appropriate steps to realise the amounts due to the Bank from the stage this Court had interfered with the action of the Bank in selling the mortgaged property for realisation of the debts due to the Bank. 6. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge