IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28346 of 2011(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- SUBASH, AGED 45 YEARS, CHITHIRA, PULIAMBILLIMUGAL, AMBALAMEDU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PIONEER TOWERS, SHANMUGAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, MARKET JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. ADVOCATE JOBIN PAUL, THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P 2995/11 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT MANTHANATH (H), NECHOOR.P.O. - 686 664, PIRAVOM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 28346 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 28346 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the amounts in instalments. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the bank. He points out that the petitioner's wife, who was a co-borrower, had filed W.P(C) No. 10158/2011, in which, by judgment dated 8.4.2011, this Court had permitted the wife of the petitioner to regularise the loan account and to continue to pay the future instalments on due dates. But the petitioner's wife committed default in complying with the conditions in that judgment. Counsel points out that the petitioner has not mentioned the said writ petition in this writ petition and therefore the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of that writ petition. According to him, he was not on good terms with his wife and in fact a divorce petition is pending in respect of their marital relationship. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with for not mentioning the said writ petition in this writ petition. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P(C) No. 28346 of 2011 -: 2 :- 5. Counsel for the bank has produced before me a copy of the judgment in W.P(C) No. 10158/2011. In the same, the petitioner is neither a petitioner nor a respondent. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to direct respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to pay off the amounts in instalments. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the amounts due in 8 equal monthly instalments starting from 1.11.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalment amounts on due dates without default, proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/