IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 504 of 2011(K) ------------------------ CMP.3720/2010 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS:- -------------------- 1. ABDUL LATHEEF.K.C,VAYALIL,PARAPPAN POIL,KOZHIKODE. 2. FOUSIYA LATHEEF, DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,REP.BY REGIONAL MANAGER, CALICUT 673 603. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK,CALICUT 673 603. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.504 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps of recovery initiated against the petitioners, under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to the default committed in regular payment of instalments in a housing loan availed by the petitioners from the respondent Bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. The respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode under Section 14(1) and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioners, the coercive steps were taken without considering request made by the WP(C).No.504 of 2011-K. 2 petitioners to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer for payment of amounts in default. 3. Heard; learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the over due amount is more than ` 26,000/- and the petitioners are not taking any earnest efforts to pay off the loan amounts in a regular manner. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioners have not chosen to avail remedies under the Statute, it is not proper to interdict with the proceedings, in exercise of the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account by payment of the amounts in default within a short time. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the WP(C).No.504 of 2011-K. 3 case, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown to realise the amounts within a short time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated for dispossession and sale of the property, provided the petitioners remit the defaulted amounts (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses, if any, accrued) on or before 31.1.2011. The petitioner shall also make payments of the regular instalments due from the month of January, 2011 along with the above said payment. 7. If payment of the amount in default is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioners to make payment of the future monthly instalments, in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, or WP(C).No.504 of 2011-K. 4 any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-