IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15664 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.PONNAPPAN, KUDILIL VEEDU, KAVALAM NORTH, KAVALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 506. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIAVE BANK LTD., PULINKUNNU BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA-688 504, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC, ALP.DIST.CO-OP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15664 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Invoking Section 14(1), the respondent Bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court seeking assistance for taking over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the CJM Court. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the coercive steps were pursued without taking note of various payments effected by the petitioner and without acceding to the request made for permitting remittance of the balance amount in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondent Bank it is mentioned that, the loan in question was availed in the year 2004 with the repayment period extending to 58 months, which 2 W.P.(C).No.15664 of 2011 had already expired on 15.7.2010. It is mentioned that the petitioner had defaulted payment of consecutive instalments and the liability as on 13.6.2011 is Rs.1,62,300/-. 4. By virtue of an interim order issued by this Court on 10.6.2011, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.40,000/- after filing of this writ petition. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a plea to permit payment of the balance outstanding in instalments, within a reasonable time. Such a request is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the immovable property, subject to 3 W.P.(C).No.15664 of 2011 condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/