IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2285 of 2011(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SAJIKUMAR.T, SINDHU BHAVAN, THOLOOR, AYLARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SINDHU SAJI, SINDHU BHAVAN, THOLOOR, AYLARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA) SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ANCHAL BRANCH, ANCHAL – 691 306. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION V ZONAL OFFICE, ARPAN TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM – 691 008. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 2285 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a home loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. On the basis of approach made by the respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking section 14(1), an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. According to the petitioners, the coercive steps were pursued without considering the request made for permitting regularisation on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts overdue. 2. Considering the effective alternative remedy available under section 17(1), this court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the condition WP(C) .2285/2011 2 stipulated has already been complied with. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioners have not cared to wipe off the liability inspite of repeated demands. Hence respondents are not favouring to permit regularisation of the account. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings . On the other hand a limited prayer is made to permit regularisation, on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amounts will be paid within a short period. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioners to regularise the account by payment of the amounts in arrears, within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for WP(C) .2285/2011 3 dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or beofre the last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to pay 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 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 . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .2285/2011 4