IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32803 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAVINDRAN.P., S/O.KRISHNAN, EZHUTHACHAN, PULAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KOPPAM, MANNAENGODE POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. P.AMBILY DEVI.P., W/O.P.RAVINDRAN, PULAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KOPPAM, MANNAENGODE POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPON.LTD., RAMON HOUSE, 169 NECKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPON.LTD., HDFC HOUSE NO.29 KAMARAJ ROAD, NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE, COIMBATORE-641 018. 3. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R3 SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL FOR R3 SRI.BOBBY THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32803 of 2010-A ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in a proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The proceedings in question was initiated consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank. The immovable property, which is the secured asset, is now being proceeded against. According to the petitioners the coercive steps were initiated without acceding to their request for permitting regularisation of the account. 2. Considering availability of the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings. W.P(C) No.32803 of 2010-A 2 However, learned counsel for the petitioners undertook that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer that the overdue amounts will be paid within a short period. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bank submitted that the overdue amounts (amounts in default) itself will come to Rs.1.80 lakhs. 3. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, considering the limited prayer, I am of the view that the petitioners can be permitted to regularise the account, especially in view of the fact that they have relinquished all challenges and the repayment period is not over. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the overdue amounts W.P(C) No.32803 of 2010-A 3 (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on before 15.3.2011 and on or before 15.4.2011 along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 5. If payments of the amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the recovery proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab