Judgment :- 1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the undated sale notice issued by the fourth respondent in Form No.9 under Rule 126(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 for selling the petitioners land and house properties situated in Old Survey No.194/2 and New Survey No.194/2A, Arurpatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, in public auction and to quash the same and to forbear the respondents from selling the petitioners said land and house properties besides directing the respondents to reschedule the repayment of the loan amount due by the petitioner to the first respondent. 3. The petitioner herein obtained housing loan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- from the first respondent/Society for the construction of residential building in the patta land belonging to her morefully described in the writ petition and the loan amount was agreed to be paid in equal monthly installments for a period of 15 years upto 20152016. But the petitioner has admittedly committed default in making monthly installments regularly and is due to pay huge sum to the tune of few lakhs. As a result, the first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the recovery of the outstanding and obtained exparte money decree and has also filed execution proceeding for the recovery of the amount due under the award. In pursuance of the order made in E.P., the house property for the construction of which the loan is sanctioned, was brought for sale in public auction. For the said purpose, the sale notice is issued to the petitioner challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for the relief as stated supra by raising various legal and factual grounds against the validity and enforceability of the impugned notice. 4. Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader would try to justify the action taken on the part of the first respondent for selling the property mainly by pointing out the chronic default in payment committed by the petitioner and the huge outstanding due to the first respondent. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. 4. Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader would try to justify the action taken on the part of the first respondent for selling the property mainly by pointing out the chronic default in payment committed by the petitioner and the huge outstanding due to the first respondent. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously appeal to this Court that the petitioner is agricultural coolie and she was initially able to pay the loan amount regularly and her failure to make regular payment is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to want of any work and her inability to earn money and also her sickness. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that she has no other source of income and she is able to complete her house property out of the loan amount with such difficulty and the same is the only property available to her for the dwelling purpose and in the event of the same being brought for sale, the petitioner will be put to much hardship. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further definitely say that the property is not yet brought for sale and though the sale publication was effected in pursuance of sale notice, no sale was held and there was no further progress in this regard and the same state of affairs continues till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also appeal to this Court that the petitioner is willing to discharge her liability but if she is given further time and she may also be permitted to approach the first respondent with proposal to reschedule the repayment of the loan amount and the first respondent may be directed to duly consider the same in the light of the poorer condition of the petitioner and till such time, the sale proceedings may be kept in abeyance. 8. 8. This Court is, considering the nature of avocation being carried on by the petitioner, the purpose for which the loan is sanctioned, the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for her failure to make regular monthly installments and also the proposal placed before this Court, inclined to show some indulgence to the petitioner by directing her to pay portion of the amount due to the first respondent, however with further liberty given to her to approach the respondents for revising the repayment schedule. In order to enable the petitioner and the first respondent to arrive at a settlement in this regard the sale proceeding may be kept in abeyance, till then. But the respondents are at liberty to proceed further as per law in the event of the petitioner commits any default in repayment of the amount as agreed herein and as per the repayment schedule, if any. 9. In the result, the impugned sale notice is set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-to the first respondent towards partial discharge of the housing loan amount within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of such payment, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the first respondent with the proposal for revising the re-payment schedule within two weeks from the date of such payment and with further direction issued to the first respondent to duly consider the proposal and dispose of the same after giving due opportunity to the petitioner for being heard within two weeks thereafter. In the event of the petitioners failure to comply with the condition to pay Rs.2,50,000/-within the time specified herein or in the event of her failure to approach the first respondent for revising the repayment schedule or to comply with the re-payment schedule as and when revised, the first respondent is given liberty to proceed with the sale proceedings as per law. 10. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.