IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35108 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SHEELA, W/O.LAL SINGH, MALINI, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER/VICE PRESIDENT, CAPITOL TOWERS, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. ADV. SRI.R.S.MOHANAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35108 of 2010-K ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner along with her husband had availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs, during the year 2005, by mortgaging immovable property along with building situated therein. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the secured asset was proceeded against by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were pursued without considering her request to permit regularisation of the loan account on the basis of the offer made for payment of the amounts in default. W.P(C) No.35108 of 2010-K 2 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed the remedy provided under the statute, at the stage when steps were initiated under Section 13(2) and 13(4), it is not proper for this Court to interdict with the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. However, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner will make payment of the amounts in default within a short time, indulgence was shown in restraining dispossession of the petitioner from the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- within two weeks from 23.11.2010. Subsequently on the basis of application made by the petitioner, time for compliance of the condition was extended till 5.1.2011. On 7.1.2011, the petitioner submitted before this Court that she had taken demand draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the Bank had refused to accept the same. Further indulgence was shown in directing the Bank to accept the demand draft and time for payment of the balance amount was extended till 20.2.2011. 4. When the matter was taken up on today, it is W.P(C) No.35108 of 2010-K 3 submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the stipulations imposed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan account in question was once regularised on an earlier occasion and the petitioner had committed default again. 5. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy is reserved. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner under law, to invoke the statutory remedy. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab