IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33711 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- CMP.3694/2009 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM ............... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MRS.AJITHA G.S., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.MADHURAGHAVAN, MADHUMANDIRAM, KARIMPINPUZHA POST, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ H.D.F.C. LTD., (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER), H.D.F.C. HOUSE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33711 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P1 & P2 steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in payment of loan availed from the respondent Bank. It is evident from Ext.P2 that, at the instance of the respondent Bank, an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the immovable property has already been issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is noticed that the petitioner has not objected to Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13 (2). It is further noticed that the petitioner has not approached the appellate authority challenging any further action. Therefore I am of the opinion that, interference on merits is not possible invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. W.P.(C)No. 33711 of 2009 -2- 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, having confronted with the above situation, requested for indulgence of this court in permitting regularisation of the account by paying the defaulted amounts. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank conceded that if the petitioner makes payment of the entire amount in default including interest and expense if any liable, the account can be regularized and she can be permitted to continue payment of future installments as per the original schedule of repayment. 3. On the basis of the above submissions, I am inclined to grant reasonable time for the petitioner to regularize the account. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make payment of the entire amount pertaining to the defaulted installments along with interest and expense if any liable in three (3) equal monthly installments falling due on or before 15.01.2010, 15.02.2010 and 15.03.2010 respectively. It is made clear that the petitioner shall also make payment of W.P.(C)No. 33711 of 2009 -3- the regular installments due from the month of January, 2010 onwards, along with the above said payments. The respondent Bank shall issue a balance statement to the petitioner, in order to facilitate payments as directed above. On clearing payment of the defaulted amounts as directed above the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future installments as per the original schedule of repayment. 4. It is made clear that on the event of failure to pay any of the installments as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued, and on any 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 shg/