IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5278 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. IBRAHIMKUTTY K.M, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.M.MOHAMMED, B-9,MAYURA BHAVAN'S 48/1707,KAILAS LANE, OPP.BHAVAN'S VIDYAMANDIR, ELAMAKKARA P.O., 2. SABITHA IBRAHIM, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.IBRAHIM K.M,B-9,MAYURA BHAVAN'S 48/1707,KAILAS LANE, OPP.BHAVAN'S VIDYAMENDIR ELAMAKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD, REP.BY CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, AT ALUVA 2. MANAGER (AUHTORIZED OFFICER) FEDERAL BANK LTD,MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKUALM 3. THE MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD, PACHALAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAPPALLI SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5278 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are husband and wife. Consequent to failure in making payment of monthly instalments with respect to a housing loan availed by them from respondents 1 to 3, proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is a secured asset, was sought to be recovered possession on invoking section 14(1) before the fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, the property in question is the residential house wherein the petitioners are residing and any steps for dispossession from that property will put them to severe prejudice. It is contended that the coercive steps are now being pursued, without considering the request made by the petitioners to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the 2 W.P.(C).No.5278 of 2011 amounts in default. 3. Heard ; counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the loan in question was availed to the tune of ` 19 lakhs during the year 2008, with a repayment period extending to 240 months. But the petitioners have consecutively defaulted payment of the monthly instalments. According to respondents 1 to 3, the total amount outstanding as on 3.3.2011 is more than ` 23.39 lakhs. Out of the said amount, the amount overdue for payment itself will come to more than ` 3.30 lakhs, is the submission. Since the loan account is in chronic default, the respondents are not favouring in permitting regularisation of the account. 4. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of ` 1,50,000/-, which is reported as complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioners make an appeal to this Court to permit the 3 W.P.(C).No.5278 of 2011 petitioners to regularise the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are not invoking any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. Considering the fact that a lengthy repayment period was provided as per the terms of the loan, and also considering the relinquishment made by the petitioners, I am of the view that regularisation can be permitted subject to incorporation of liberty to the respondents to proceed further in case of default. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire amount overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in two equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before 30.4.2011, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due with respect to the months of March and April 2011. 4 W.P.(C).No.5278 of 2011 6. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners 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 petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/