IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20134 of 2008(V) -------------------------- OS.46/2006 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.A.SAINUDHEEN, S/O.ALIPILA, AGED 67 YEARS, MUKALEL HOUSE, KOOVALLOOR, PALLARIMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER SRI.T.JUSTY MATHEWS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, P.B.NO.3667, CC/38/542, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, POTHANICADU BRANCH, POTHANICADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. A.S.P. KURUP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.20134 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to them. The contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner's property is an agricultural land, which is exempted from the purview of the Act and further the bank has filed O.S. No.46/2006 before the Sub court, Muvattupuzha, which is pending. 2. The fact as to whether the property is an agricultural land or not is a fact which has to be proved by evidence, which cannot be done in writ proceedings. It is settled law that pendency of a suit is not a bar for initiating proceedings under the Act. That being so, the objections raised by the petitioner against the proceedings are not sustainable. W.P.(c)No.20134/08 2 3. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the amounts due in instalments. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank. Even then I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs within one month from today. The balance amount shall be paid in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the 1 st working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the above said instalments in time without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay the amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs or any of the subsequent instalments, it would be open to the respondents to complete the proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.20134/08 3