IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11473 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P.ISMAIL, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.POOKUNJU, RIYAZ MANZIL, THOTTINU VADAKKU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SMT.SULAIMATH, RIYAZ MANAZIL, THOTTINU VADAKKU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 518. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 518. 3. K.RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE, ULIYAKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE CJM COURT, KOLLAM VIDE ORDER IN CMP.NO.980 OF 2011) PIN - 691 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC., UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11473 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are husband and wife. Consequent to default committed in repaying housing loans availed by the petitioners from respondents 1 and 2, the immovable property, which is a secured asset, was proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Respondents 1 and 2 had invoked Section 14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requesting to hand over the possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioners, the default occurred due to the unexpected cardiac illness of the 1st petitioner and the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering the request to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the defaulted amounts, 2 W.P.(C).No.11473 of 2011 within a reasonable time. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that one of the housing loans was availed in the year 2006 with a repayment period of 8 years and other one was availed in the year 2008, with a repayment period of 6 years. Both the loans are in chronic default and the coercive steps were initiated, after issuing repeated demands to the petitioners. 4. Considering availability of the effective remedy under the statute, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges raised and that they are relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, regularisation can be permitted, even though interference on merits is not warranted. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts 3 W.P.(C).No.11473 of 2011 remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of two succeeding months, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, 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/