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. 5753 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- MC.16/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THANKAPPAN NAIR. K.S, S/O.SANKARA PANICKER AGED 57 YEARS, KAITHAMANNIL HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KUMBAZHA. P.O, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, REP. BY THRESSIAMMA JOSEPH, THE CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ANIL P.NAIR, ADVOCATE (COMMISSIONER), PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN, SC, SOUTH INDIAN BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5753 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st 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 1st respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is the secured asset was proceeded against. By invoking Section 14(1) the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by that court to take over possession of the property. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the CJM court in this regard. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 with a repayment period of 15 years and the coercive steps were now proceeded without acceding to the request for regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the entire amounts in default. Hence the writ petition is filed. 3. It is reported that, in compliance with an interim order the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Learned W.P.(C).5753/11 -2- counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had committed default in payment of consecutive instalments and the amount remaining overdue for payment itself will come to around Rs.1.7 lakhs. 4. Considering the effective remedy provided under the statute, this court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit regularisation on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy, if available. 5. Considering the limited relief, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the loan account in view of relinquishment of challenges made and also in view of the fact that the repayment period is not expired. 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 property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the defaulted amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding W.P.(C).5753/11 -3- months, along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective months. 7. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any of the future monthly 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