IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35844 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJAN. K.J., S/O.JANARDANAN, KOORTHANAYIL HOUSE, VILLOONNI.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECURITIZATION ACT 2002, THE KOTTAYAM DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE KOTTAYAM DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 35844 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) for dispossession and sale of immovable property, which is the secured asset with respect to a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, this writ petition is filed. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayments, the respondent Bank had invoked steps under the SARFAESI Act, and Ext.P3 notice was issued proclaiming sale of the property on 11.12.2010. According to the petitioner, the housing loan in question was availed in the year 2005 and the repayment period will expire only in the year 2025. It is stated that the petitioner was suffering from serious illness and he is undergoing prolonged treatment and he could not effect regular payments of the monthly instalments due. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain the coercive steps. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not WP(C) . 35844/2010 2 resorted to the statutory remedy available, which is efficacious, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict the proceedings. However, the sale proclaimed was ordered to be deferred through an interim order, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is reported that the stipulation has already been complied. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittied that the petitioner is not intending to pursue the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing challenges raised against the proceedings. On the other hand, the limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer for payment of the amounts in default within a short time. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the amount in default is around Rs.1.16 lakhs. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also considering the fact that repayment period of the loan is up to the year 2025. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery WP(C) . 35844/2010 3 provided the petitioner remits the amount outstanding in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.2.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. Petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months along with the above said payments. 5. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) . 35844/2010 4