IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5470 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT KUTTIYULLATHIL HOUSE, KOKKALLUR P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3. ADV.DILEENA, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMP.NO.2033/2010, ADVOCATE, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-11. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, TATA AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD., IST FLOOR, MN'S AVENUE, OPP. YMCA, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-11. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.5470 of 2011-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the 4th respondent Bank, proceedings was initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). At the behest of the 4th respondent, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached invoking Section 14(1). An Advocate Commissioner appointed by that Court has taken steps for dispossessing the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were initiated without considering his request for permitting regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts remaining overdue. 2. By virtue of an interim order issued by this Court on 7.3.2001, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Bank submits that a sum around Rs.67,000/- is still remaining overdue for payment. However, it is conceded that the repayment period W.P(C) No.5470 of 2011-G 2 of the loan is till the year 2013. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy available, it is not justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account, considering the relinquishment made and also considering the fact that the period of repayment is not over. 5. 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 entire amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in two (2) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months along with above said payments. W.P(C) No.5470 of 2011-G 3 6. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab