IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36424 of 2010(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- P.A.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.P.C.AYYAPPAN, T.C.NO.78/4710 BEENA NILAYAM, ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, BEACH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA RESPONDENT : ---------------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHALI BAZAAR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36424 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, with respect to a Housing Loan availed by him from the respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, on issuing Ext.P2 notice as contemplated under Section 13(2), the Bank is now proceeding with further steps without acceding to the requests made by the petitioner to permit regularisation of the loan account by paying the defaulted amounts. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question was availed as early as in the year 2003 and the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults in repayment of the amounts. It is further stated that the Bank had once permitted re-scheduling of the loan, but still there is default. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has got effective remedy against steps taken as provided under the statute, I am of the view that it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226. However, learned counsel for W.P.(C).36424/10 -2- the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit regularisation of the account. It is also stated that the petitioner is proposing to pay off the entire amount outstanding, since he is intending to take voluntary retirement and since he may get considerable amounts as benefits out of such retirement, which can be utilized for clearing the arrears due. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps on the basis of Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months, along with the above said payments. 6. If the payment of amounts in default is regularised as W.P.(C).36424/10 -3- directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue 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 or any future monthly instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb