IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 29338 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRAJU, AGED 35, W/O.SABU KUMAR, R.P.N.NIVAS, KODANGAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR & SRI R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, RIJUMON.R.S,M S/O.LATE K.SURENDTRAN, BRANCH MANAGER,DEWANS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. PARAMESWARA TOWERS, NEAR GEETHANJALI HOSPITAL, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-14. ADV. SRI.BASIL THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29338 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 15, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner owes money to the respondent by way of repayment of a loan advanced to her by the respondent. Since the petitioner committed default in repayment, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. On 19.12.2008 this court passed the following interim order:- “Following the order dated 3.10.2008, petitioner has deposited Rs.2 lakhs. That deposit obviously was in October, 2008. Under such circumstances, interim order is extended until further orders on condition that the petitioner deposits at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per month payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from December, 2008. If the petitioner fails to deposit any of the instalments as W.P.(C).No.29338 of 2008 2 aforesaid, this order of stay will stand recalled automatically and the respondents will be at liberty to forthwith proceed with distress action. The respondent will be at liberty to bring up the matter by filing counter affidavit, if so advised.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. In the above circumstances I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any further indulgence in the matter. Even otherwise, in proceedings under the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the above circumstances this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE mt/-