Kerala High Court
Shahida Hamza vs Punjab National Bank on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 295/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHAHIDA HAMZA
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.HAMZA, RESIDING AT MANDEDATHU HOUSE, NEAR GOVT.
HOSPITAL, COLLEGE ROAD, CHERPULASSERY ROAD
2 HAMZA
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MOIDENNKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANDEDATHU HOUSE, NEAR
GOVT. HOSPITAL, COLLEGE ROAD, CHERPULASSERY ROAD
BY ADV G.CHITRA
RESPONDENT/S:
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
CHERPULASSERY BRANCH, CHERPULASSERY,PIN-679 503
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR PNB SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021
The petitioners are the defendants in
O.S.No.295/2014 filed by the respondent for realization of
Rs.6,26,558/- due towards the educational loan availed
by the petitioners. The suit was listed for hearing on
08.06.2016 and due to the absence of petitioners, an
ex-parte decree was passed on 16.06.2016. At the
instances of the petitioners, the ex-parte decree was set
aside and the suit was again listed for trial on 09.07.2018.
That day, the counsel for the petitioners reported no
instructions, resulting in yet another ex-parte decree
being passed on 19.07.2018, again, the petitioners filed
an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and
the same was allowed. When the suit was listed for the
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
third time on 06.01.2019, the counsel again reported no
instructions and the suit was decreed ex-parte on
14.02.2019. Undaunted, the petitioner filed I.A.827/2019
for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The application
having been dismissed, CMA 1 of 2020 was filed before
the Additional District Court, Ottappalam. The appeal
was allowed by Ext.P1 order on condition of payment of
cost of Rs. 25,000/- within 10 days. The original petition is
filed, aggrieved by the quantum of cost and the limited
time granted for payment.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the loan was availed for educational
purposes and the 1st petitioner being still unemployed,
the loan could not be repaid in time. It is submitted that
absence of the petitioners, on the days when the suit was
listed for trial, was not wilful and was for reasons beyond
their control. It is contended that having allowed the
appeal, the appellate court should not have imposed the
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
exorbitant cost of Rs.25,000/-, particularly in view of the
difficulties being faced by the public due to the prevailing
pandemic situation and the resultant lock down.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent raised
strong objection against reducing the quantum of cost
imposed and contended that the manner in which the
petitioners had protracted the suit disentitles them from
claiming leniency.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side. I
find that the appellate court was fully justified in allowing
the appeal on terms. At the same time, considering the
difficulties being faced by the public at large due to the
pandemic and the lock down, as also the fact that the
default is of an educational loan, I am inclined to reduce
the quantum of cost and to extend the time for
remittance.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed in part.
The imposition of cost is upheld and the quantum is
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
reduced to Rs.15,000/-. which the petitioners shall pay
within one month from today.
(Sd/-)
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
LU
OP(C) NO. 1721 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1721/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1/2020
// True Copy // PA To Judge
