IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 35168 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- AHMED KABEER.P,S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, PARANCHEERI HOUSE,VALLUVAMBRAM.P.O,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. MALAPPURAM BRANCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-676001. 2. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. 3RD FLOOR,H.D.F.C.HOUSE,RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-682015,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. R2 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SRI.BOBBY THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM , J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35168 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a housing loan availed from the respondents, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The loan in question was availed to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs, during the year 2008, with repayment period extending to 10 years. On the basis of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the respondents had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and that court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property, which is the secured assets. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the property in question. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, he was regularly paying the monthly instalments, but the default occurred 2 W.P.(C).No.35168 of 2010 due to unforeseen circumstances. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the coercive steps were pursued without considering his request for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the defaulted amounts within a reasonable time. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy provided, this Court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed subject to imposing conditions. Interim stay was extended on different dates insisting upon part payment of various amounts. It is conceded that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had remitted a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a plea for showing indulgence in permitting regularisation, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory 3 W.P.(C).No.35168 of 2010 remedy. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the basis of instructions submitted that, after crediting all payments made, the balance outstanding as overdue (defaulted amounts) is around Rs.3.05 lakhs. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not warranted, the limited plea for permitting regularisation can be considered. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the overdue amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.6.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the two succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as 4 W.P.(C).No.35168 of 2010 directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. 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 notice already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/