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. 9412 of 2011(B) -------------------------------- CMP.103/2011 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BIJU LAWRENCE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.LAWRENCE, MANGALA HOUSE, R.C.STREET, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN-686 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OPFFICER, THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC., UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9412 of 2011 ------------------------------- 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 respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is a secured asset, was proceeded against. The respondents had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court by invoking Section14 (1) and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 with a repayment period of 154 months and the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to his request to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer made for payment of the defaulted amounts, within a short period. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not taken any earnest 2 W.P.(C).No.9412 of 2011 efforts to pay off the dues. It is noticed that, by virtue of an interim order issued by this Court the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1 lakh. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, still there is an outstanding arrears to the tune of more than Rs.1.80 lakhs, with respect to the defaulted instalments. 4. Considering availability of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court for permitting regularisation of the account on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, the petitioner is seeking permission for payment of the defaulted amounts within a short period. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting 3 W.P.(C).No.9412 of 2011 regularisation of the account. 6. 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 in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of 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 4 W.P.(C).No.9412 of 2011 free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/