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. 8827 of 2011(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHIJI SHAMSUDEEN, S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, 'SHIJI MANZIL', MANKAMKUZHI.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MAVELIKKARA BRANCH, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT-690101. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, ALAPUZHA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001. BY ADV. SRI.SURENDRANATH, SC., SBI. 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.8827 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Considering availability of the effective statutory remedy provided under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, on the basis of persuasive submissions made, dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh within 2 weeks from 21.3.2011. Subsequently, on the basis of an application made by the petitioner, the time stipulated for compliance of the condition was extended till 16.4.2011, subject to further condition for payment of an additional sum of Rs.1 lakh on or before 20.5.2011. 2. It is conceded that, inspite of extension granted, the petitioner could not comply with the original order or the further condition imposed. Under the above mentioned 2 W.P.(C).No.8827 of 2011 circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy will stand reserved. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy against the impugned proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/