IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4210 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- I.R.SAVITHRI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. INDIARA, AGED 36, THETTIYARA JAYA BHAVAN, VELLARDA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK VELLARADA BRANCH, VELLARDA.P.O., PIN-695001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4210 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Coercive steps initiated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the immovable property, which is the secured asset as far as the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank is concerned, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, she is a housewife living in a class which is 'Below Poverty Line', as evidenced from Ext.P1 Certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat concerned. It is contended that the loan in question was availed for agricultural purposes. But the venture failed due to various reasons. However, coercive steps now initiated is challenged on the ground that the immovable property which is now proceeded against is an agricultural land coming within the exemption provided under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents denied the allegation that the loan was availed for agricultural purpose. It is the specific contention that the loan W.P.(C).4210/11 -2- in question was availed for construction of a residential building and the building in question was constructed in the property which is being proceeded against. Therefore the contention that the property is an agricultural land is also refuted. It is further stated that the loan was availed as early as in the year 2004, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, and the amount outstanding at present will come to more than Rs.3,50,000/-. 4. While considering the rival submissions I am of the view that, this court is not justified in interfering with the matter or in venturing any adjudication on the disputed factual aspects. This is especially because of the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 17(1). 5. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is relinquishing all her challenges as well as her rights if any to invoke the statutory remedy. On the other hand a limited prayer is made to permit her to wipe off the entire liability within a short time, in a phased manner. 6. Considering the limited prayer made, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, this court may be justified in permitting payment of the balance outstanding within a reasonable time, in view of the fact that the W.P.(C).4210/11 -3- petitioner had relinquished all the challenges. 7. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest due thereon in 7 (seven) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb