IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8101 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SAHADEONATH, D/O. HAMEED KUTTY, PADEERAYYATHU VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, PALLISSERIKKAL.P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,M.G.ROAD,STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001. 3. B.S.ANUP, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, C.M.P.NO.3523/2010 CJM KOLLAM - 691 001. 4. NIZAR.S., S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, VAZHAVILAYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, PALLISSERIKKAL.P.O.,SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 001. 5. NAZEEMA, MUKKODIYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK - 691 010. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC., UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8101 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June 2011. J U D G M E N T In view of the fact that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor guarantor with respect to the loan transaction in question and also in view of the availability of effective statutory remedy as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ( SARFAESI Act), this court was not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. However, on the basis of pursuing submissions made to the effect that the petitioner is occupying the premises and the non-payment will cause severe prejudices, indulgence was shown in staying W.P.(C) No. 8101 of 2011 2 the dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned proceedings subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 2 lakh within two weeks from 15.3.2011. Subsequently, on the basis of an application made by the petitioner, extension of time was granted for compliance of the condition, till 16.4.2011. However, condition was also imposed with respect to continuation of the interim order directing paying of a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on or before 28.5.2011. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration it is stated that inspite of extension granted, neither the original order was fully complied with nor the petitioner had remitted the amount subsequently imposed as a condition for continuance W.P.(C) No. 8101 of 2011 3 of the stay. 3.In the above mentioned circumstance, I am inclined to entertain this Writ Petition any further. However remedy if any, available to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority is left open. 4. Accordingly this Writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights if any, available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE al