IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28166 of 2004(C)
1. D.PRASAD, BHATHI VILAS,
... Petitioner
2. D.RAJESH, RESIDING DO.
3. P.K.THANKAMMA, RESIDING AT DO.
4. K.G.DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT DO.
Vs
1. THE MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
For Respondent :SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :12/02/2007
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.28166 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of February 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is the judgment debtor in E.P.5/2004 in
C.R.B.No.4924/2000 before the Sub Court, Pala has filed this
writ petition wherein the prayers are the following:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or
direction quashing all the further proceedings in
E.P.No.5/2004 before the Sub Court Pala in
C.R.B.No.4924/2000.
ii) Issue a direction to adjourn the delivery of
property, giving the petitioners a reasonable time to
repay the balance loan amount in instalments.
iii) Such other appropriate writ or order or direction
this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Pursuant to orders passed by this court on 25.9.2004
and 29.11.2004, it is submitted by the petitioner and the
respondent that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by the
W.P.(C)NO.28166 OF 2004
2
petitioner towards the decree debt to the respondent Bank. This
was done before 23.1.2005. Thereafter, not a paisa is paid by
the petitioner for the last two years. It is submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that there was an oral direction by this
court to the respondent Bank to file a statement of the amounts
due after granting the petitioners all possible deductions and
deleting penal interest. The submission so made is not borne out
by any order passed by this court. However, the respondent can
file the statement and the petitioner can file objection to the said
statement in case that statement does not show the correct
amount due to the respondent Bank. All that has to be done
before the Execution Court and not before this court. More than
reasonable time has been granted by this court and the relief
petitioner wanted was only reasonable time to pay off the debt.
Whatever be the dispute with respect to the exact amount due, it
is not in dispute that a few lakhs is also due to the respondent
bank. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners
are prepared to pay at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month without
default till the debt is cleared to which counsel for the
W.P.(C)NO.28166 OF 2004
3
respondent also is agreeable provided default clause is also
incorporated. In the circumstances, I direct that the petitioner
shall pay to the respondent Bank Rs.25,000/- each per month on
or before the 20th of each calendar month beginning with
20.2.2007. In case payment of any instalment is defaulted, the
delivery of the mortgaged property sold to the decree holder will
take place. Any dispute with reference to the balance amount to
be paid can be advanced before the Execution Court and got
adjudicated. All the same, it is made clear that the debt as on
the date of sale is the amount for which the sale was conducted.
With this direction this writ petition is closed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
jes
