IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1496 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALSALA, D/O.SARASWATHY, AGED 44, AYANIVILA THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, THOONGAMPARA, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. MANAGER, KATTAKADA BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KATTAKADA-695 121. 3. SASI, AYANIVILA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, THOONGAMPARA, KATTAKADA PO-695 121. BY SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1496 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P2 and P3 notices published proclaiming sale of immovable property, pursuant to steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repaying a loan availed by the petitioner from respondents 1 and 2, the property, which is the secured asset, has now been proceeded against. It is contended that the petitioner had remitted various amounts after initiating the proceedings. But the property was proclaimed for sale without accepting request made by the petitioner to grant time for payment of the balance outstanding, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to avail remedy as provided under Section 17(1), against the steps initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. As such, contentions on merits raised in this writ petition could not be W.P(C) No.1496 of 2011-J 2 adjudicated. However, indulgence was shown in directing deferment of the sale, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the condition has already been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that she is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit payment of the balance outstanding in instalments, within a reasonable time. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the amount outstanding as on 28.12.2007 was a sum of Rs.2,09,621/-. It is further stated that whatever payments effected by the petitioner had given due credit. The respondent Bank is not favouring in granting any extended period since the loan account is remaining in default for the last few years. 4. Considering the rival submission, I am of the view that an equitable relief can be granted to the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further steps for W.P(C) No.1496 of 2011-J 3 dispossession or sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking one time settlement by waiver of amounts to the possible extent. If any such approach is made, the same shall be considered despite the stipulations contained in the judgment. 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 further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.1496 of 2011-J 4