IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10532 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.J.PAULOSE, PANNACKALPARAMBIL, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFESI ACT, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.10532 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from him. The case of the petitioner is that, he is aged about 84 years and was a rubber tapper. Because of the physical difficulties he was unable to do any work, which made him a defaulter and in turn the Bank proceeded with further steps under the Act as above. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was earlier constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No.33522 of 2008, which led to Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner had given up all the contentions with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken under the Act and the liability was permitted to be cleared as specified therein. 3. Eventhough the petitioner effected payment, as borne by Ext.P2 series receipts, the liability could not be cleared in toto, under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps causing the property to be sold in public auction, as borne by W.P(C) No.10532 of 2010-N 2 Ext.P5. It is also submitted that the sale scheduled on 27.3.2010 did not take place as there was no bidder. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has made some other alternate arrangements to clear the entire outstanding liability within two months and the present Writ Petition is only to enable the petitioner to pursue such course. 5. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, in view of the particular facts and circumstances, further recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be pursued only after two months, so as to enable the petitioner, who is aged more than '84 years', to clear the liability, more so, since the sale already scheduled on 27.3.2010 did not take place. The above submission is recorded. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Bank for any other concessions or reliefs and it is for the Bank to consider the same and to extend the same to the possible extent. The Writ Petition is closed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab