IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1841 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.26771/2011 Dated 24/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- ARADHAN, S/O.ARUMUDHAN PADINJATTAYIL,AGED 39, MOORKKINIKKARA P.O, KOZHUPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD; EAST FORT BRANCH, REP.BY ITS MANAGER,EAST FORT, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 005 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD; REGIONAL OFFICE,MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE,SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1841 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. 2. The appellant had availed a housing loan (`.20 lakhs) from the respondent Bank in the year 2007 creating security in respect of property about 13.5 cents of land. However, the appellant turned to be a defaulter under which circumstance the account was declared as NPA by the Bank and proceeded with under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 3. This made the appellant to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.35098 of 2010 challenging the proceedings under the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge subject to condition that a portion of the liability was W.A. No. 1841 of 2011 -:2:- cleared by the appellant, which however was not complied with. Finally, the said writ petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 11.01.2011 with liberty to the appellant to approach the Bank for settlement of the dues. 4. It is the case of the appellant that, though the appellant approached the Bank expressing the desire to have liability settled, it was not positively dealt with and quite a huge amount was sought to be realised from the appellant without any regard to the actual facts and figures, which according to the appellant, is involving some hidden charges as well. It was in the said circumstance that the appellant sought to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition, i.e.,W.P.(C) No.26771 of 2011. Referring to the earlier round of litigation and the adverse circumstance, interference was declined by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Petition was dismissed, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we find that, the only dispute is with regard to the actual extent/quantum of liability sought to be realised from the W.A. No. 1841 of 2011 -:3:- appellant towards the loan transaction. It is also very much a dispute which can be agitated by approaching the DRT by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if the appellant is aggrieved in any manner. This Court does not find any compelling circumstance to call for interference with the verdict already passed by the learned Single Judge declining jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Article 226, more so when the appellant admittedly stands to be a defaulter in complying with the direction of this Court passed earlier. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb