IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 34107 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VISALAKSHY RAVEENDRAN, 58 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN P.N., PALLIYIL HOUSE, VALARKKAVU, KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR – 680 006. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, RASMECCC, II FLOOR, MAHESWARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR - 1. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI - 400 001. R1 BY ADV. MR.N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34107 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. On invoking section 14(1), the respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 with repayment period extending to 10 years and the coercive steps were pursued without considering the request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default . 3. Standing Counsel for 1st respondent Bank submits that the loan account is in chronic default and even the petitioner had failed to make payment of the instalments inspite WP(C) .34107/2010 2 of repeated demands. However it is conceded that the repayment period is for 10 years. 4. Considering the effective remedy provided under section 17(1), I am of the view that it is not justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However by virtue of an interim order passed by this court on 11.11.2010, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1,25,000/. Learned counsel for the petitionermade an appeal to this court to permit regularisation , on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing challenges against the proceedings and that she is not pursuing any statutory remedy. 5. Considering the fact that the repayment period is for 10 years and also considering the relinquishments made, I am of the view that the limited relief sought for can be considered. 6. Accordingly, 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 petitioner remitting the amount remaining overdue for payment(defaulted monthly instalments along with WP(C) .34107/2010 3 interest and expenses if any due) in 2(two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes any approach before the respondents, he shall be issued with details regarding statement of accounts in order to facilitate payment as directed above. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, or any one of the future monthly instalments, respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the proceedings already initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .34107/2010 4