IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10643 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.M.C.MOHANAN, S/O.LATE CHELLAPPAN, RAMNIKA NILAYAM, ULIYATHADKA, PO OF MADHUR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CANARA BANK, BANK ROAD BRANCH, KASARAGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KASARAGOD P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN - 671 323. 2. SMT.CHANDRAMATHI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNA, K.K.COTTAGE, CHATTUMKUZHI, HIDAYATH NAGAR, KASARAGOD P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 323. BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10643 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, through which the petitioner was intimated about steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner is a guarantor with respect to loan availed by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated. 2. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, when proceedings was initiated under the SARFAESI Act. W.P. (C)No.16289 of 2010, filed in this regard was disposed of through judgment dated 9.6.2010. As a gesture of indulgence, this court gave permission to make payment of 2 W.P.(C).No.10643 of 2011 the entire liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to make payment of the entire amounts in 6 equal monthly instalments, starting from 30.6.2010 onwards. It is conceded by the petitioner that even though certain amounts were paid, the stipulations in the judgment was not fully complied with. Now the 1st respondent had proceeded with further steps by issuing Ext.P1 notice. 3. It is pertinent to note that, against Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner has got an effective remedy to invoke jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under Section 17(1). However it is evident that, challenging the very same proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had once approached this Court and this court was benevolent to permit the petitioner to make payment of the amounts in a phased manner, in easy instalments. Propriety and judicial discipline demands that, this Court should restrain from entertaining a further writ petition on the very same subject, that too, filed 3 W.P.(C).No.10643 of 2011 without resorting to the remedy provided under the statute. 4. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, remedy if any available to the petitioner as provided under the statute as well as remedy if any available against the judgment in the earlier writ petition, are left open. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner as observed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/