IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13905 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KURUMKAD HOUSE, MARUTAROAD P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECC, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13905 of 2011 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). The relief sought for in this Writ petition is for a direction to the respondent bank to restrain from taking over the possession of the property as well as a direction to estimate the entire liability after deducting remittance already made. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion challenging the very same proceedings. In Ext.P3 Judgment the said Writ Petition was dismissed since the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated by granting an interim order, inspite of extension of time granted subsequently. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that prior to filing of the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner had also approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the very same proceedings. It is further stated that he had failed to comply with the condition stipulated by the Tribunal while granting interim relief. 3. It is now conceded by both sides that pursuant to the proceedings initiated, the immovable property which is a secured asset had already been taken over possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a further contention that the respondents had also taken over possession a portion of the building which does not belongs to the petitioner and which was not mortgaged to the respondent bank. According to the petitioner, the said portion was assigned in favour of the wife of the petitioner prior to creation of mortgage. However, I am of the considered opinion that such dispute could not be adjudicated in this Writ Petition which has filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If either the petitioner or his wife has got any contention with respect to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in exercise of the power under section 14 (1), it is left open to them to challenge the same before appropriate authority. 4. In the above mentioned circumstance, I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE al