IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17091 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RATNAKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVA PANICKER, KALARIKKAL VEEDU, VADAKKANCHERI PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK NO.329, THRISSUR. 2. COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., WADAKKANCHERY BRANCH. MR.V.G.ARUN, SC FOR THE RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.17091 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also Mr.T.R.Harikumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Society. 2. The petitioner is a confessed defaulter to the 2nd respondent Society. Recovery proceedings were initiated and have culminated in Ext.P1 sale notice. In terms of the notice, the amount to be recovered is Rs.4,25,000/- as on 18/05/2009, and the sale is to take place on 22/06/2009. The petitioner neither disputes the liability nor the quantification, and the only prayer made is for an instalment facility. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank rightly opposes the prayer referring to the defaults that were committed by the petitioner, and also stating that the petitioner has approached WP(C) No.17091/2009 -2- this Court at the last moment, despite having received the notice as early as in the middle of May, 2009. 4. Although, the objection raised by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be erroneous, still having regard to the fact that the petitioner requests for only a limited relief, I am inclined to think that the petitioner should be given yet another opportunity, so that the liability will be discharged and the property will be saved from a distress sale. 5. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That the petitioner shall remit an amount of rupees one lakh before 11.00 A.M. on 22/06/2009. Subject to such remittance, sale as per Ext.P1 will stand adjourned. (2) If the petitioner makes payment as above, the balance amount due from the petitioner will be permitted to be paid in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be paid on or before 30/07/2009, and the subsequent WP(C) No.17091/2009 -3- instalments will be paid on or before 30th of every succeeding months. 6. Subject to payment as above, recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance, and in case default is committed, it will be free to the respondents to continue the proceedings. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the Bank for the benefit of the OTS Scheme, if any, in vogue. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg