IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 23133 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJILAL, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.SIVANKUTTY ASARI, MARUKI DESOM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CAN FIN HOMES LTD.NO.28/2452,GROUND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREEDEVI S.,D/O.SANTHAKUMARI, PARAMBINTHALA ANUSREE VEEDU,NO.VP II/634 A, VILAVOORKAL PANCHAYAT,VIZHAVOOR DESOM, MALAYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PADMAKUMAR, PARAMBINTHALA ANUSREE VEEDU,NO.VP II/634 A, VILAVOORKAL PANCHAYAT,VIZHAVOOR DESOM, MALAYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK FOR R1 SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23133 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the property which is now being proceeded against by the 1st respondent, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had purchased the property from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent derived title of the property by virtue of a settlement deed executed by the 3rd respondent who is her husband. Infact the 3rd respondent had created a charge over the property by mortgaging it in favouor of the 1st respondent Bank, for securing a loan, which facts were concealed from the petitioner. However, it is submitted that on coming to know about the mortgage and about the SARFAESI proceedings being pursued against the property, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent Bank offering for settlement of the loan account by paying arrears due. Since such request was not acceded to and coercive steps were being pursued the petitioner has approached this court. W.P.(C)..23133/09-J 2 2. By virtue of an interim order issued on 24.9.2009 the petitioner had effected payment of an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. As per counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that an amount of Rs.6,69,240/- is due as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, along with future interest. The amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs is paid out of the above mentioned amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court to permit him to pay off the balance within a reasonable time in installments. Learned standing counsel for 1st respondent submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not taken any effective steps till date to pay off the arrears in order to save the property from being proceeded against. 3. On consideration of the rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire balance within a reasonable time in installments. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of the entire balance amount due in the loan account along with the interest if any falling due in future, in 4 (four) equal monthly installments starting from 31.12.2009 onwards and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. The 1st respondent is directed to keep in W.P.(C)..23133/09-J 3 abeyance further steps if the amounts are paid within the time stipulated as above. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the amounts as stipulated above, the 1st respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the proceedings already initiated and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. 6. It is also made clear that payment made by the petitioner to the Bank will not in any way prejudice his rights to realise the amount from respondents 2 and 3, if eligible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb