A debtor is entitled to clear outstanding amounts in installments, with conditions for non-coercive proceedings.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner availed credit facilities from the first respondent Bank. On default being committed proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, and an award was obtained determining the liability of the petitioner. Thereafter, the award was put to execution, and Ext.P1 sale notice has been published proposing to sell the mortgaged property on 27.09.2024. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent bank to allow the Petitioner to clear off the outstanding amount in 25 monthly instalments.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed with Exhibit P1 or to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the above loan. And iii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

iv. Dispense with production of filing translations of vernacular documents.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though such a contention has not been taken in the present writ petition, Ext.P1 sale notice is bad for the reason that no reserve price has been fixed in respect of the property. It is submitted that this is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Haridasan K.B. v. Palliyakkal Service Co-operative Bank (LTD) No.2232, 2022 KHC OnLine 1063. It is further submitted that in WP(C)No.39593 of 2025, [a writ petition filed by the father of the petitioner in respect of another loan taken by the mother of the petitioner from the first respondent] a contention has been raised that the sale notice is illegal for failure to fix a reserve price.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the only relief sought for in this writ petition is a direction to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in installments. It is submitted that the contention that Ext.P1 sale notice is bad for the reason that no reserve price has been fixed need not be considered, as the sale which was proposed to be conducted in terms of Ext.P1 did not take place, and if the mortgaged property is to be brought to sale again, a fresh sale notice will have to be published. It is submitted that, while publishing a fresh sale notice, the Bank will take note of the law laid down by this Court in Haridasan K.B.(supra). It is also submitted that the Bank has no objection in granting some installments to the petitioner to clear the liability. It is submitted that the liability as on today is Rs.9,39,768/- (Rupees Nine lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only), after giving credit to the amounts paid by the petitioner after the filing of the writ petition.

4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to repay the outstanding amount in eighteen(18) installments.

5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding amount of Rs.9,39,768/- (Rupees Nine lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only) along with any accrued interest, cost and bank charges from the petitioner in the following manner:

(i) The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount of Rs.9,39,768/- (Rupees Nine lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only) together with any accrued interest, cost and bank charges in eighteen(18) equated monthly installments;

(ii) The first installment shall be paid on or