IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/24TH PHALGHUNA WP(C).No. 5757 of 2011 (T) -------------------------- CMP.7145/2010 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. M.SARASAN, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, `KRISHNA KRIPA', PUTHENKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. L.S.SINI, W/O.M.SARASAN, `KRISHNA KRIPA', PUTHENKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE MENACHERICKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5757 of 2011 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.30170/2010 DTD.29.11.2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF PERSONAL LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF CASH CREDIT FACILITY AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF HOUSING LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD.11.2.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.5757 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T This is the second round of litigation on the subject matter which falls under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The 1st petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P(C) No.30170/2010. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court had shown indulgence in permitting the 1st petitioner to pay off the liability under two distinct loan accounts, a cash credit facility and a personal loan account. With respect to the third loan account, housing loan, this Court permitted regularisation by directing payment of the amounts in default in four equal monthly instalments starting from 31.12.2010 onwards. However, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amounts due for regularisation of the housing loan, within the time stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. Consequently coercive steps W.P(C) No.5757 of 2011-I : 2 : for dispossession of the immovable property was initiated by invoking Section 14(1), before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. The present writ petition is filed at a stage when that Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. Considering the fact that this Court has shown sufficient indulgence on an earlier occasion, it is not proper and justified in entertaining the present writ petition and in granting any further relief. Moreover in view of the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) and in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners had brought to my notice the fact that, pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court restraining dispossession, the petitioners had remitted the entire amount overdue in the loan account and the said account now stands regularised. W.P(C) No.5757 of 2011-I : 3 : It is also mentioned that, noticing such payment the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had already dismissed the proceedings which is initiated under Section 14(1). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had conceded that the amount in default has already been paid. However, he has no instructions with respect to dismissal of the matter by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, under the above circumstances, made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment, on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioners will not invoke any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges. Considering the fact that the loan account now stands regularised, I am of the view that the petitioners can be permitted to continue payment of the future monthly instalments as per the original schedule, subject to liberty reserved for the respondent to pursue further steps in case of default. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P(C) No.5757 of 2011-I : 4 : the respondent to permit the petitioners to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment, provided the petitioners remitted the entire amounts in default. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the future months instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to take effective steps for dispossession and sale of the property. It is also made clear that the petitioners are hereby restrained from taking any statutory remedy or from raising any subsequent challenge in future. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab