IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 28263 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.JAYAPRAKASH, MADHAVI MANDIRAM PERINGODE, PALAKKAD, NOW R/O. AMBADY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, KALADY. 2. MAYAKRIHAN W.O. K.JAYAPRAKASH MADAVI MANDIRAM, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD. NOW R/O. AMBADY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM , KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER SARC ARMD ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ALUVA BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 28263 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had availed two loans, an agricultural loan and a housing loan, but repayment was not prompt, which made the respondent Bank to proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act. Because of the adverse circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, where an interim order was passed on 26.09.2008 intercepting the coercive steps, on condition that the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. One lakh eighty thousand, upon which the Bank was directed to put the petitioner back in possession of the property taken over on the basis of Ext.P1. 2. It is stated that the petitioner satisfied the said amount and he was put back in possession. Subsequently, the interim order was extended on 04.11.2008, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs.75000/- per W.P.(C) No. 28263 OF 2008 2 month on or before the last working day of every month commencing from November, 2008, subject to which SARFAESI proceedings in respect of the housing loan was ordered to be kept in abeyance, simultaneously observing that it was without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the O.A pending before the DRT under the RDB Act. Correctness and sustainability of said interim order was challenged by filing W.A.No.2284 of 2008 and after arguing the matter, as observed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 01.12.2008, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Appeal and accordingly, the Writ Appeal was disposed of. Thereafter, the matter was considered again by the learned single Judge of this Court on 12.12.2008, whereby the sequence of events was noted and the petitioner was directed to report compliance in respect of the sum of Rs.75000/- with regard to the month of November, 2008, however modifying the subsequent liability, directing to effect deposit @ Rs.10000/- every month, which is Rs.500/- above the E.M.I fixed by the bank for the housing loan ; W.P.(C) No. 28263 OF 2008 3 to be paid on or before the last working day of every month commencing from December 2008. Subject to this, the position with regard to the 'housing loan' was ordered to be continued, making it clear that if any default was committed in satisfying the liability as above, the benefit of the interim order would stand recalled automatically. 3. The learned Counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner has effected only 'three' installments of Rs.10000/-, the first one on 30.01.2009, the second one on 30.03.2009 and thirdly on 02.06.2009. In the above circumstance, there is an obvious default on the part of the petitioner, which fact is rather conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who seeks to offer some explanation in this regard, particularly as to the plight of the petitioner and other incidental circumstances. 4. It is seen that the interim order passed by this Court on 12.12.2008 is a 'self contained one' and since there is default on the part of the petitioner in satisfying the requirements, this Court does not find it as a fit case to interfere with the matter exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the W.P.(C) No. 28263 OF 2008 4 Constitution of India, any further. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies, if any, available under the relevant provisions of law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk