IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3368 of 2011(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 57, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, RESIDING AT BMS HOUSE, VALIA KANICHODE, KALAMCHAL P.O., VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 695 023. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3368 of 2011-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Steps taken for sale of an immovable property, pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and publication of Ext.P2 notice, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner availed a loan from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.1 lakh, which was defaulted repayment. According to the petitioner the coercive steps for sale of the property was taken without considering the objection raised to the effect that the property is an agricultural land exempted from the purview of the SARFAESI Act. It is further contended that such steps were pursued without considering the request made by the petitioner to permit 'one time settlement'. 2. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. Eventhough this Court was not inclined to entertain W.P(C) No.3368 of 2011-U 2 the writ petition because of the alternative remedy available, confirmation of sale if any takes place was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the stipulation has already been complied with. It is further stated that the sale as contemplated under Ext.P2 has not taken place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough various contentions are raised, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the entire balance and that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and is relinquishing all challenges raised. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit payment of the amount in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, eventhough interference on merits is not justified, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to make payment of the entire balance outstanding in instalments, within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of W.P(C) No.3368 of 2011-U 3 directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab