Devis vs Special Tahsildar on 15 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15136 of 2009(J)


1. DEVIS, S/O. DEVASSY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAKKADAVU,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :15/06/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                   W.P.(C) No.15136 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                     Dated this the              15   th June, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was a surety to the accused in four cases,

viz., S.T.Nos. 561 of 2006, 530 of 2008, 546 of 2008 and 538 of

2006. Subsequently, the accused did not appear before the

court, whereby the concerned Magistrate was constrained to

cancel the bail bond, simultaneously initiating appropriate M.C.

proceedings against the sureties as well. Pursuant to the orders

passed in M.C.Nos. 45,46,47 and 48 of 2008, the bond was

forfeited and the petitioner was proceeded against for

realisation of the bond amount, which led to revenue recovery

proceedings , as evident from Exts. P1 to P4, which in turn have

been sought to be intercepted by filing the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. Obviously, the orders passed by the Magistrate in the

M.C. proceedings have not been subjected to challenge . The

limited prayer now made from the part of the petitioner is that

he may be permitted to clear the entire liability by providing

W.P.(C) No.15136 OF 2009

2

some reasonable time, particularly, in view of the poor pecuniary

circumstances of the petitioner, who is stated as an agriculturist.

4. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the

petitioner is permitted to clear the entire liability covered by

Exts.P1 to P4 by way of six equal monthly installments the first of

which shall be paid on or before the 30th of this month and the

remaining installments on or before the 30th of the succeeding

months. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the

petitioner in remitting the installments as above, the

respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner

with further steps, for realisation of the entire outstanding

liability (on the basis of Exts. P1 to P4) in a lump sum.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk