IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/3RD PHALGHUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 35568 of 2010 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- CELIN,W/O.ALEX,MEDONA BHAVAN, ERAVATTUVILA,KANNIMEL CHERRY,KAVANADU KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: -------------- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,(GENERAL MANAGER) KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK,LTD.960 KOLLAM-691001. R1 BY SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) R1 BY SMT.D.P.RENU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35568 of 2010 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.9853/2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.27.7.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.28.9.2010 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.11.11.2010 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.19.11.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35568 of 2010-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The respondent Bank had invoked Section 14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. At that juncture the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.9853 of 2010. In Ext.P1 judgment this Court had shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in four equal monthly instalments, falling due before the end of June 2010 and before the end of the succeeding months. It is evident that the petitioner had not fully complied with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. Now the petitioner raises some dispute regarding correctness of the balance for which demand is raised. W.P(C) No.35568 of 2010-U : 2 : 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner had already approached this Court and sufficient indulgence was shown in permitting instalment payment, it may not be proper and justified to entertain this writ petition. Further at any rate it is not possible for this Court to have an adjudication regarding correctness of the amounts due. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded that she will pay off the entire liability due, subject to liberty to approach the respondent Bank seeking clarification regarding correctness of the amount and waiver of interest to the possible extent. On behalf of the petitioner an offer is made to pay off whatever liability due, within a short period, and on that premise indulgence was sought for in restraining further coercive steps regarding dispossession and sale of the property in question. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not at all justified, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability within a short period. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession and sale of W.P(C) No.35568 of 2010-U : 3 : the property in question, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.3.2011. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Bank seeking clarification regarding correctness of the amount or seeking waiver of interest, if any to the possible extent. However, considering such request, the Bank shall intimate the net balance payable immediately on remittance of the amounts stipulated as above. The petitioner will pay off the balance amount so intimated on or before 30.4.2011. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps under SARFAESI Act and on such event the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab