IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 16701 of 2009(O) -------------------------- EP.164/2008 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: --------------- V.SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. MUHAMMED, VALLOORAN HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., PERINTALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-0PERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PERINTALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O, MALAPPURAM DT. ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16701 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directions to stay the sale of the property covered in Exhibit P3. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the first respondent to extend the benefit of one time settlement to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 and allow the petitioner to pay the loan amount in monthly installments.” 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.164 of 2008 in A.R.C.No.5 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Manjeri. Towards realisation of the decree debt the respondent/decree holder in the above execution petition has taken steps for sale of the property of the judgment debtor over which a mortgage was created as security for the loan transaction. A conditional order of stay was passed at the time of admitting the writ petition directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the decree holder bank towards the decree debt due. That deposit, it is reported had been made. Pursuant thereto the petitioner/judgment debtor was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs fixing a period of 45 days for W.P.(C).No.16701 of 2009 - O 2 compliance. Admittedly, the amount so ordered has not been deposited within the period fixed. At the time of hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submitted that in view of the noncompliance of the order passed by this Court as indicated above, the writ petition may be disposed but, with a direction to the decree holder bank to consider his eligibility to settle the decree debt in tune with Ext.P2 circular which provide for one time settlement with some concessions. Ext.P2 circular which provide some concessions, according to the counsel for the petitioner, can still be availed by a defaulter to a loan transaction to a co-operative bank. The respondent bank has no objection in considering the merit of the request canvassed by the petitioner provided the scheme covered by Ext.P2 circular continues to be in force. If that be so, no further direction from this Court is required as the petitioner can approach and make such request to the bank; and, the bank, if Ext.P2 circular is in force, is expected to consider and dispose it on merits. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-