LEELAMMA JOHN Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel representing the 4th respondent Bank.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the appellant had availed two loans and both were agricultural loans. The loans were disbursed in 2006 granting 60 instalments. However, the repayment schedule was not regular and the appellant became a defaulter, hence Revenue Recovery Proceedings came to be initiated. This order was under challenge before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) WE do not find any good ground to interfere with the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we note, the first instalment as scheduled by the judgment of the learned Single Judge is already defaulted by the appellant. The benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would accrue to the appellant, only if the defaulted instalment is paid by her payable on 10.08.2012 along with the instalment which becomes due on 10.09.2012.