GIJI SAJI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT debtors in E.P.No.130 of 2005 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Sulthanbathery facing execution of decree for payment of money in O.S.No.9 of 2003 of that court are the petitioners before me. The property of petitioners are being brought up for sale on 16.09.2010. Their contention in this Writ Petition is that they are entitled to the protection and benefits of the Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 (for short, "the Act"), they have preferred an application before the Commission appointed under the said Act for appropriate reliefs with respect to the debt in question, that application has not so far been disposed of and if in the meantime properties of petitioners are sold in court auction they will be put to much injury and loss. Hence it is prayed that learned Sub Judge may be directed not to proceed with E.P.No.130 of 2005 in view of the said Act, to declare that petitioners are entitled to get benefit of the said Act and issue a direction to respondent No.2, Regional Manager of decree holder (respondent No.1) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, application after hearing petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that petitioners are entitled to the protection of the said Act. Learned counsel for respondents contend that the said Act has no application to the debt due to respondent No.1 which is a Central Public Sector Undertaking and hence, there is no merit in the contention of petitioners. Though learned counsel for petitioners stated that farmers who had availed loans from such Central Public Sector Undertakings also were given the protection and benefit of the Act, learned counsel for respondents contend that it was based on a scheme of the year 2008 framed by the Finance Ministry of the Central Government. It is also contended that one of the loans in the case on hand is a housing loan.

(2.) THOUGH learned counsel on both sides invited my attention to the applicability or otherwise of the Act to the debt in question I do not consider it necessary to go into that question since that is a matter to be decided initially by the Commission appointed under the Act before which petitioners claimed to have preferred an application in the year 2007. Hence I leave that matter to the decision of the Commission. It would appear that inspite of the application being preferred some time back it has not so far been disposed of by the Commission. In the meantime properties of petitioners are scheduled to be sold in court auction on 16.09.2010. In the circumstances I am inclined to direct learned Sub Judge to adjourn the sale scheduled to be held on 16.09.2010 to a day after two months from this day subject ofcourse with condition. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: