IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2072 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- CMP.86/2011 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAMABHADRAN.N, S B BHAVAN, PUTHIYAVILA P.O., PATTOLI MARKET, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKARA BRANCH. 688511. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKARA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 530. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2072 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repaying a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under Section 13(4) was initiated. Invoking Section 14(1) of the Act, the respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2006 with a repayment period of 15 years. It is stated that coercive steps are now being pursued without considering the request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation of the account in question. 3. Heard; Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents. It is noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1), when steps was initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act. Under such circumstances it is not proper for this court to interdict with the proceedings, in exercise of power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).2072/11 -2- 4. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, the limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amounts will be paid within a short period. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account in view of the fact that the repayment period is for 15 years and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. 6. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery by way of dispossession and sale of the property, provided the petitioner remits the entire amounts in arrears (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.2.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the two succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due for the respective months, along with the above said payments. 7. If payment of the amounts in default is regularised as W.P.(C).2072/11 -3- directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay off 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 any future monthly instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb