IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

REENA.S, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. SUBASH BABU, KANNIMEL VEEDU, NANMENI KIZHAKKU, MUNRO THURUTHU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691502 BY ADVS.

BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THOMAS C.ABRAHAM BASIL MATHEW RESPONDENTS:

1 HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD REGISTERED OFFICE AT ZENITH HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, OKESHAV MAR, MAHALAKSHMI, MAHARASHTRA, - 400 034, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, CREATIVE COMPLEX, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY B RANCH MANAGER, PIN - 691008

2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT ZENITH HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, OKESHAV MAR, MAHALAKSHMI, MAHARASHTRA- 400 034 HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, CREATIVE COMPLEX, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691008 BY ADVS.

P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2024 Aggrieved by the coercive proceedings initiated by the

1^st respondent-Finance Company for recovery of loan advanced to the petitioner’s husband, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the respondents to sell an extent of the secured asset and settle the loan account excluding the petitioner’s residence.

2. The pleadings and arguments made at the Bar would indicate that it is the petitioner’s husband who availed financial assistance from the 1^st respondent. The residential property having an extent of 8.50 Ares was mortgaged. The petitioner is residing in the said mortgaged property. The petitioner’s husband is missing.

3. The petitioner states that there is an attachment of the property made by the Family Court. The petitioner’s prayer is to direct the 1^st respondent to sell the portion of the property excluding the residential building and clear the loan account on the basis of the sale.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the property cannot be sold in part. The lay of the property is such that retaining the residential building and selling the landed portion is not feasible. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the Standing Counsel.

5. Heard.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted a breathing time to find appropriate purchasers for the property and clear the loan account through private sale on strict conditions.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if ₹

the petitioner remits an amount of 5 lakhs within a period of ₹

two weeks from today and a further amount of 5 lakhs within a further period of two weeks therefrom and files an application for One Time Settlement, then the respondents shall defer the coercive proceedings till the respondents take a decision on the One Time Settlement proposal. If the petitioner fails to remit the amounts as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18606/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/4/2024 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA IN CMP NO. 1012/2024 IN M.C. NO. 26/2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

7/3/2024 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL I, ERNAKULAM IN I.A. NO.

963/2024 IN S.A. NO. 178/2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED

16/5/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C. NO. 163/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM