IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 8321 of 2008(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VARGHESE MATHAI, 64 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.TERFEDS TEXTILES 820/XXV, CSI SHOPPING COMPLEX,VAZHOOR ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT NAIKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMARA, MADAPILLY P.O., THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- VIJAYA BANK, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K. ANAND, SC, VIJAYA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8321 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought for in this writ petition are for directing the Bank to hand over possession of the petitioner's residential house from which the petitioner has been evicted on the strength of Ext.P1 order. It is stated that the petitioner had availed of loans and cash credit facility from the respondent Bank and when default was committed, proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the Bank has obtained Ext.P1 order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. Even at that stage, petitioner did not make any effort to settle the liability and finally, physical possession was taken over and thereafter this writ petition has been filed. The contention that is now urged is that the liability towards the cash credit facility availed of by the petitioner was indicted as Rs.3,50,000/- in Ext.P1, but however upper limit of the said facility has been indicated as Rs.2 lakhs in Ext.P3. On this basis, counsel contends that the Bank had played fraud on the Judicial First Class Magistrate who passed Ext.P1 order. I am not in a position to appreciate this contention WPC No.8321/08 :2 : at this stage. The details of the liabilities must have been mentioned in the notices that were issued to the petitioner and he has no case that any objection was raised by him. Had it been raised in reply to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the Bank would have been obliged to consider the same and pass an order dealing with the objection. It is only at this belated stage, this contention is raised. If at all the petitioner had this contention, petitioner should have raised it at the appropriate time and should have sought statutory remedies that are available against the proceedings. It is further contended that even wearing apparels were not allowed to be removed from the residential house while evicting the petitioner and his family. To this, the counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner can remove such wearing apparels if he so desires. Therefore, I direct that on production of copy of this judgment to the respondent, the Bank will permit the petitioner to remove the wearing apparels of the petitioner and his family, which are available in the house from which they are evicted. In all other respects, writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp