IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17607 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABU SEBASTIAN, MAYILAKKATTU HOUSE, NEDUMANNI P.O., NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.K.48, P.B.NO.198, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTTAYM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.K.48, KODUNGOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THE KOTTAYAM CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.K.48. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.17607 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he had availed of a Housing Loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the 2nd respondent Bank in the year 2006. Default was committed, and he was issued Ext.P1 notice calling upon him to remit the then outstanding amount of Rs.80,886/- before 01/07/2009. It is stated that before the expiry of the period fixed for payment in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 advertisement has been published by the respondents proposing sale of the property mortgaged by the petitioner, on 24/06/2009. The petitioner submits that on seeing Ext.P2, he has filed Ext.P3 before the 4th respondent and Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent. It is stated that these representations are also remaining unattended. It is in these circumstances, that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to direct consideration of Ext.P4. 2. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank explains the inconsistency between Exts.P1 & P2, pointing out that the Sale Officer has already issued a notice to the petitioner WP(C) No.17607/2009 -2- and that notice was returned unclaimed, and it is stated that it was in view of that, Ext.P2 sale notice was published. He points out that Ext.P1 was issued by the Branch Manager and that it was on account of the communication gap between the Branch Manager and the Sale Officer that Ext.P1 happened to be issued to the petitioner. In so far as the request made by the petitioner for regularisation of the loan is concerned, the learned counsel for the Bank points out that the request can be considered only if the petitioner clears the arrears. 3. Irrespective of the explanation now offered by the respondents, a reading of Exts.P1 & P2 referred to above show that though by Ext.P1 the petitioner was given time till 01/07/2009 to clear the outstanding amount, the Sale Officer has proceeded with the sale and the property is scheduled to be sold today. 4. On receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner has also applied for regularisation of the loan. 5. Having regard to the submissions thus made by both the parties, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving an opportunity to the petitioner to clear the arrears, so that the Bank WP(C) No.17607/2009 -3- can consider Ext.P4 request. Therefore, it is directed that the amount of Rs.80,886/- shown as outstanding in Ext.P1 should be paid by the petitioner in two equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the petitioner before 2.00 P.M. on 25/06/2009, and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 16/07/2009. Subject to payment as above, it is directed that though the sale scheduled today will go on, its confirmation will be deferred and the 1st respondent will consider Ext.P4 request made by the petitioner for regularisation of the loan account. It is also directed that until orders are passed on the request so made by the petitioner in Ext.P4, the confirmation of sale will not be effected. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg