IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 2825 of 2008(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JACOB SEBASTIAN LISSI COTTAGE, ALUVASSERY POTHUNDI ROAD, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, MANGALODAYAM BUILDING, P.B.NO. 123, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA NENMARA, KAIKUTTY BRANCH, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC FOR UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 2825 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a guarantor to his son who had availed of a loan from the respondent bank. Default was committed and when steps were taken by the bank in 2003 under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.)C) No. 35466/03. Since the conditional order of stay was not complied with, the writ petition was disposed of relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, nothing happened thereafter and payment was also not made. As the default continued, the bank continued action and Ext. P2 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. At this stage, this writ petition is filed praying that he be given a breathing time to discharge the liability and may not be dispossessed from the building. W.P.(C) No. 2825 OF 2008 -2- 2. Standing Counsel appearing for the bank submits that the petitioner has been a chronic defaulter and presently about Rs.29 lakhs is the liability. It is also stated that on an earlier occasion when the bank attempted to take possession of the property, petitioner resisted and therefore the bank had to obtain an order under Section 14 of the Act. It is also stated that presently what is proposed to be done is to take symbolic possession of the building and if the petitioner is bonafide wants to discharge the liability he still has time to discharge the liability. 3. Whatever be the controversy, I am not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner. This is for the reason that on an earlier occasion petitioner had on the same cause of action filed a writ petition before this Court and that was disposed of relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. A person cannot obtain interim order, commit default and thereafter again approach this Court. 4. The apprehension of the petitioner of an immediate dispossession also appears to be misplaced, since the bank only intends to take symbolic possession of the property today. If the petitioner wants to discharge the liability as pointed out by the W.P.(C) No. 2825 OF 2008 -3- counsel for the bank he still has time to save his property from coercive action. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-